[pron]

Well, I think that the problem with what you're saying is the definition of "consent". Suppose there existed a part of society that was born to people of means, or at least - connections. Then, suppose there was another part that was born to generations of neglect, and even abuse by the other part (I think that in the US, abuse had taken some extreme forms at various times in history). Now, I'm not so sure that a person coming from the disadvantaged part of society can actually give his free "consent" to sell a kidney to someone coming from the well-connected part. Sure, both side may want what the other side offers, but I doubt the freedom of such a decision. There are many forms of coercion - some of them very subtle yet very powerful.

EDIT: Though, again, my main complaint isn't about one opinion or another regarding this issue, but about the lack of discussion of what is, in-fact, the real issue here. Instead, I see commenters suggesting ways to deal with vandalism or "crap data". To me it sounds like discussing the (efficient) mechanics of, well, I don't want to give extreme historical analogies here which do not apply, but the point is that people are quick to suggest ways for improving a process before giving serious, and I mean serious, thought to the question of whether this process should exist in the first place, and what could its effect be on the minds and souls of the people its targeting.

[cornell532]

Ah, now we arrive at the real nut of anti-Libertarianism: paternalism. The notion that somehow adults are not capable of making their own decisions. This is our fundamental disagreement. To me, impoverished, indigent people struggling to make ends meet are fully capable of making their own decisions. People fondly recall stories of their immigrant ancestors working hard and struggling in order to provide a better life for their children. Why do we want to curtail the ability of today's poor from making the same decisions? You're deciding for them that it's better to stay poor than whatever alternative they might choose for themselves (in an effort to climb out of poverty) because you know better than them.

I will admit, there are roles for government regulation in the marketplace. I simply do not know enough about the chicken I buy at the grocery to make an informed choice. I appreciate the health inspectors, organic labels, and other regulations that facilitate a free, fair, and efficient marketplace in which I do not need to know the farmer to be confident my chicken will not poison me.

However, I do not think lack of open (and understandable) information is the issue in this particular case.

Regarding your last point, I agree with you. The more interesting aspect here is not the implementation details, but rather the questions you're raising of free enterprise, the freedom to work, and the freedom to engage in free & fair commerce of your choosing.

[pron]

Sorry, buddy. What you're describing isn't libertarianism. Libertarianism must first of all advocate true liberty, including liberty from exploitation, and if it's not the government's job to enforce this freedom, then you must advocate the exploited's right to fight the exploitation, even through violent means, because exploitation is a form of violence as well. That people under extreme duress do not really have the option of a truly free choice is not paternalism - it's a fact.

What you're describing isn't libertarianism. It's simply a way to preserve power in the hands of those who already possess it. You can't condone the government's right to legislate laws that permit economic exploitation but prohibit violent opposition.

[ekianjo]

Define "exploitation", please. Words are important here.

[pron]

Exploitation: taking advantage of the other's misery to further your own goals.

If there were no people who are so poor as to need what meager pay the future mechanical-turk farmers are willing to give, those farmers wouldn't close down their services - they would either settle for less profit, or find another long term solution. This option exists only because of some people's hardships, and it's more profitable for the farmers to take advantage of this option, namely, people's misery, hence - exploitation.

[ekianjo]

Thanks for defining what you mean by exploitation. Now, exploitation can only exist in a market where workers have no choice but to accept the conditions of a single employer. This is typically the case when you are a slave for someone else and you have lost your freedom completely.

However, the have-nots (who are willing to work) can probably find several occupations, from different employers. They will have some range of choice concerning the salaries, the conditions and so on. Maybe not a large choice, but some choice. And one thing is clear: the less minimum wage there is, the more choice of occupations there will be, since there will be more employers generating occupations where profit can be made, since you lower the costs of labor at first.

Those occupations would not exist if it is easier or more profitable for people to stay on welfare.

And as it has been demonstrated in so many cases/countries, the longer one stays on welfare, the most likely one is not going to look for a job, welfare is actually a promoter of misery in the long term, especially for those who are at the very bottom, since they get no real incentive of getting out of it.

In a sense, politicians are guilty of exploitation as well, based on your definition. They take advantage of some voters' misery to promise them continuous welfare for which they are not responsible to pay for, and they further their own goals by getting rich in the process.

But, to come back on "exploitation" again. You are considering that is is a zero-sum game, basically. One, the exploiter, is gaining something while the exploited is losing. But economics almost never work that way. Both employer and employee have something to gain out of it. Both profit from the situation. The Employer makes money, can extend his business and ends up needing more people in his payroll. The Employee makes enough money to survive, has an occupation and has a social activity within society - they build relationship/reputation and somehow experience. They may not be making much monetary profit, but they are still gaining something out of it.

Please do not forget that all people who lived before us had to go through misery before reaching nowadays' living standards. If you come back a hundred years ago, then you may well consider that everyone then was being "exploited", but that is not how they would see themselves at the time.

[cornell532]

By your logic, pharmaceutical companies are exploiting cancer patients.

Patients with horrible, painful, fatal diseases are certainly miserable. Pharmaceutical companies are certainly looking to further their own goals through the development and sale of life saving drugs.