> There are good critiques of the concept and value of autonomy, and to what degree we have autonomy (beyond the metaphysical sense) in a capitalist market. Also, I'm not saying autonomy is irrelevant, I'm saying it's not the only thing that's relevant. Morality entails more than respecting autonomy.

So that's the hurdle you need to cross in order to justify measures which violate other people's autonomy. You have to explain why it's ok to interfere in the relations between two consenting parties in order to impose your own values on people who do not share them.

> The point is that you don't have to care for it to be exploitation.

I'm asking you why it's a bad thing to have relations that you consider to be exploitation. Exploitation is a value-laden characterization, its not an objective feature of a relationship.

> Perhaps not individually, but as a general trend in society it leads to a mass of people being in poor positions to bargain and a smaller number of people being in very good positions.

"Less to offer == poorer negotiating position" is not a trend in society, but an identity that arises from the nature of negotiations.

> I don't think that's a good thing, because it leads (very realistically) to some being at the mercy (speaking in terms of resources required to live or sustain a family) of others by virtue of factors beyond their control.

The fact that someone needs resources to live is a brute fact of reality and applies to all systems. Aside from that, markets are an efficient method of allocating scarce resources and abandoning markets because of scarcity is like jumping off a bridge because you hate heights.

> I've already mentioned the concept of the local maximum in employment; even if there are multiple reasonable options for employment all options are possible, it does not follow that any will be good options.

No, just the best options available given material and social constraints.

> This is the just-world fallacy; the market, as already clarified, does not necessarily produce just outcomes, and it's unclear why it should be thought it does.

Because the market is a means for allocating scarce resources and unrestricted market transactions are Pareto improvements. Its not a fallacy to observe that a world with more justice is a more just world than a world with less justice.

> Why does the market decide my entitlement? Should it, speaking in terms of economic systems, decide my entitlement?

Because the market is not a thing-in-itself but a label we give to the collective actions of market participants, and your entitlement in the market is created by obtaining things in transactions with people who want to transact with you. If you don't care about ethics, then you don't care about entitlements. If you care about ethics, then you can see how you wouldn't be able to become entitled to something without the owner transferring the title to you, or coming into possession of unowned property.

> For slaves, their masters decided their entitlement. Now it's a market which was created by a set of laws and property rights, and maintained as such. Is it really beyond question?

Nothing is beyond question. Mutually reciprocal norms arise from a desire to avoid violence and a desire for the best deal possible. Arguments which challenge the equal rights of all human beings but do so obliquely are suspect so I'll ask you to proceed with this questioning.

> The demand is useless if nobody will agree to it.

When people don't agree to something but someone forces it on them we usually call it unethical.

> Sure, I have a "goal to survive", but this seems to cheapen both the concept of goals in a goods economy and the idea of survival which supercedes all other goals to the point of being a biological impulse we are prepared to kill for. It's lower than any psychology or even any other need. It's a physical process. When we say somebody has no goals, we don't assume they are just okay with dying and would be apathetic if we killed them.

This might be persuasive if humans were unable to choose goals that conflict with continued survival. Also characterizing the human need for food in order to survive and the economic need for a means of selling one's labor into one concept is misleading, as if one starves to death the moment one is fired or quits their job. Sure, you need a job. Just like the capitalist needs someone to work in his factory. After all, it is both of your livelihoods. Just don't presume that either of your needs is more important than another human being's freedom to decline a transaction.

> The labourer and the capitalist have opposing interests (speaking class-wise).

This is a Marxist fallacy which has caused an inestimable amount of sorrow. Individuals have interests, classes do not.

> Better wages were never on the Marxist agenda.

Yet self-proclaimed Marxists advocate for increasing the minimum wage. Hence my admonition to read more Marx.