That’s no strawman. You just refuse to see that there is no universal way to decide upon value that fits everyone’s notion of it. If both people in an exchange come away satisfied, did one exploit the other? How do you strictly define the excess value on each side of the transaction? Your idea of a profit-less society doesn’t consider how we’d pragmatically exchange our labor to achieve that.
We aren’t mind readers. If you think we are wrong, explain why. You can call an attempt at defining your poor communication a strawman, but it only shields your ideas from the test of debate.
That’s no strawman. You just refuse to see that there is no universal way to decide upon value that fits everyone’s notion of it. If both people in an exchange come away satisfied, did one exploit the other? How do you strictly define the excess value on each side of the transaction? Your idea of a profit-less society doesn’t consider how we’d pragmatically exchange our labor to achieve that.
deleted by creator
We aren’t mind readers. If you think we are wrong, explain why. You can call an attempt at defining your poor communication a strawman, but it only shields your ideas from the test of debate.
deleted by creator