I depends what you mean by commerce. If commerce is defined as the exchange of goods (virtual or real), then you could argue that there is no situation where something is given without something being recieved in return.

e.g. You give money to a charity and you feel good. Therefore, you're buying feel-goodness for money.

Or you post something on metachat. You give the post and you receive kudos and friendship.

I don't really subscribe to this theory. It's neat in a philosophical way, but it doesn't deliniate between the things we do for each other out and the things we do in a traditional commercial sense. There's also an implication within the term "commerce" that you can place a value on things and therefore you can place a value on things like charity and friendship. That's not an avenue I'd like to pursue.

Of course, even within this very broad explanation of commerce, there are transactions which are so one-sided that they cannot be defined as commercial at all. Breaking into a strangers house and stealing their television cannot be defined as commerce. Also, anything we do simply for our own edification cannot be defined as commerce (As you need two parties).

That doesn't really answer the question though.

I'd maybe define commerce myself as any mutually beneficial transaction which requires a commercial lubricant (e.g. money). This would exlude all the charity stuff (and also any form of barter).

Everything is not commerce, but just about everything has the potential to become commerce. If for some reason people start paying to look at the sun, then that sunshine has becomea commodity, and part of commerce. The best things in life are free, but there's always going to be somebody that tries to make a buck off of them. I'm not anti commerce, but many of the things that bring me the most pleasure in life require no cash transaction...for now.

I think the question is too strongly loaded to be very useful. If everything is commerce, then in some necessary sense commerce must be something different, or more, than the version of "commerce" implied by this question. The point of view of this question is simpleminded in a very unhelpful way—it simplifies so much that it cannot really mean what it thinks it means. It is very much like the question, "Are all actions selfish?"

Selfishness and commerce are distinctions we make between different acts—if we assert that all acts are one or the other then we've moved to a completely independent context within which to understand these words.

Kmellis - if you disagree with me, then the terrorists win.

Haven't they already?

everything is commerce if you choose to apply the concept "commerce" to it. However it can still be art or whatever else at the same time.

For some odd reason i relate this to the question of "is your dog reslly your friend?" Some people say, "no he just likes you because you feed him." To which I say, so what? How does that make him not your friend? You can say your wife just likes you because you give her sex and companionship and money, and it's true, but that doesn't change or lessen the fact that she loves you.

I could tell you, but then you'd have to pay me.

What's it all about?

Pussy & Money.

It may not be the way we like it, but (and if I've learned nothing else in this life, I've learned this) that's the way it is

Nope. Only commerce is commerce. The rest is just stuff. Until it becomes commerce. Then it's commerce. Until then, just stuff.

...and 'pussy' could stand for power or ego or any kinda sex, too. nobody's motives are entirely pure.

this does not mean that one can't do good things, simply that anyone who tries to pretend that their motives are pure is either hopelessly naive or full of shit, and in either case is not to be trusted.

Great answers in this thread! I'm glad I clicked!