Unfettered, however, the idea is that they tend towards equilibrium.

This is unargued. In fact, its based on what an unrealistic model of a market economy would do.

I would argue that Unfettered a free market would tend towards disequilibrium as inequality rises.

Let us assume that it is, and further let us assume that this is widely recognized and that wage-labor as we know it has ceased to exist.

Stop right there. What you're talking now is Mutualism, not Capitalism. Once as you take wage-labour away, you stop having a Capitalist system.

Is your goal to remove wage labour? At this point I'm a bit unsure on what you're suggesting.

Now, perhaps wage-labor is a form of economic rent. Let us assume that it is, and further let us assume that this is widely recognized and that wage-labor as we know it has ceased to exist. Whatever the owner-laborers receive in exchange for their wares is their revenue, and insofar as their revenue is sufficient to cover opportunity costs and living expenses, then the owner-laborer (by the product of his labor) is enjoying the net increase in human prosperity brought about by a greater abundance of goods and services than those which existed ex ante.

If the owner-laborer is unable to justify the time, effort, and other resources he expends on the production of his wares with the revenues he receives in exchange therefor, he exits that (unprofitable) venture in search of another, better opportunity which he can justify.

However I will point out that the perfect equilibrium that economic textbooks talk about does not and cannot exist, so it's silly to talk about what the markers naturally do in this context.

In this case, I think it's mostly a semantic disagreement :)

As for the question of property, I probably fall somewhere between Proudhon and Locke. Perhaps it seems a wide spectrum, but I believe it's possible to merge the concepts of possession/property, and homesteading/abandonment.

This is a topic for another post, one that I've been thinking of writing for some time now. In any event, I hope you'll offer your opinions in response to that post (wherein we agree and wherein we may disagree) whenever I get around to actually writing it.

I hope so, but generally, it's a disagreement in the property debate that causes a disagreeement in the profit debate.

"I've read it from time to time – my French is quite rusty, although I can still read & write it, fluency in speaking/listening troubles me."

And the main problem for your understanding is the fact that my blog presents concepts in a Quebec local point of view. I have the same problem about speaking English.

I've read it from time to time – my French is quite rusty, although I can still read & write it, fluency in speaking/listening troubles me.

"I don't know about Franc's opinion on this, but this is not a problem for me, and I don't think that you have to get a new life, but I think you should reconsider some of your premises."

Glad to hear it – as for my premises, they are always subject to further review/revision.

I agree that the "property" vs. "possession" debate is probably far more important than this "profit" nonsense we've been wasting so much time on the last week or so. Our opinions regarding property and possession are probably much more in agreement.

But when you said this: "As the purpose of eating is to sustain life, the purpose of production (whether it be for your own use or another’s) is profit. Eating permits us to live another day, while profit allows for that day to perhaps be more enjoyable than the previous.", you used the same rhetoric used in statist-capitalist propaganda. That's why I call it "Capitalist Bullshit", not because you're a capitalist. But, in the "material profit" sense that you described in the cake example, it could be acceptable.

"Now, if you think that I'm using the word "profit" incorrectly, and that there is a better, more accurate, mutualist definition for the phenomenon that I'm describing, by all fucking means, tell me what that word is so that I may use it, and put this topic to rest, once and for all."

François, or other mutualists, knows better that me about that. Maybe the profit debate isn't so important after all. Maybe we should focus on the "property vs possession" debate, cuz the position in the profit debate depend widely on the position in the property debate.

"I surmise that english may be your second language (as French is my second language), however, you could do better by avoiding excessive exclamation points, and overuse of the word "bullshit" to emphasize your opinions."

Interesting. And you can read my blog? You're right about the exclamation points.

"If I need to "get a new life" so badly, what does it say about you & Franc, who are spending nearly as much time on my blog as I am? Not much, apparently."

I don't know about Franc's opinion on this, but this is not a problem for me, and I don't think that you have to get a new life, but I think you should reconsider some of your premises. But you have the freedom to think like you want.

If you call it "profit", I accept that.

"All I'm trying to say is that "profit" can exist in an anti-capitalist sense. I'm not sure why this is such a square-the-circle proposition for Franc."

Only with criminal exploitation, natural monopolies or oligopolies, or "material profit" that you described here.