Let's see if I understand.

If I pay a man to mow my lawn, and allow him to use my lawnmower and gasoline to preform the task, but don't let him use my mower to mow his own lawn, I am exploiting him.

Since I am exploiting him he has a moral right to take my lawnmower by force.

Whereas if I never offered him the job he would never have been exploited, so he would have no moral right to take my lawnmower.

I gotta agree with Eric. It's boring debating with people who more or less agree with you. Much more interesting to discuss weighty topics with people from the other side.

Let's dispense with this strawman right now. I'm not offering slavery. I'm offering work for pay.

We are both better off if the person in question accepts my offer. By definition that cannot be exploration.

Why do I owe them the surplus value? Did I agree to? How did I take on this obligation without agreeing to it?