So there is a neutral market with a certain degree of state intervention, but without too much state intervention? That strikes me as a very contrived idea of neutrality. And I don't, for the reasons outline just above. I understand why capitalists would want such a level of intervention, of course, because it represents all the defences of capital and none of the defences of labour, but I don't imagine that you would adopt such a candid defence of the multi-jillionaire set.. In the sense that they can usually gain some access to welfare money located at, in the long term, something a slither above sustenance level, perhaps, but that's a technicality of certain governmental institutions, not a meaningful description of social-political reality. Most people do are in practice obliged to pursue work, whether or not they can actually get it, because most people do not accept such a lifestyle- not least because, in countries like the US, it means effective lack of access to healthcare, which any civilised society regards as a basic necessity. We can do that now; it is neither a wholly viable solution, nor, if you take the Marxist position, a solution at all. But the government intervenes in the trade of other commodities, through taxes, regulation, tariffs, and so forth; why is this one in particular so heinous? It seems to me that it's the least offensive of the lot, given that it isn't, as in most cases, an economically regressive intervention. And yet you continue to debate, which leads me to think that you don't actually believe this at all. As I note above, you seem to arguing for a certain narrow band of state intervention, and I don't really know what it is about that particular level that makes it special. (I understand why capitalists would argue for that level, of course, because it includes all the benefits lent to capital and none of the benefits lent to labour, but that's not really a defence for your position.) No, that's exactly what "intrinsic value" doesn't mean. I really don't know how you arrived at that conclusion. You're confusing exchange value and individual use-value.