That reminds me of an argument I once had with my brother.

He said “Your argument is unfalsifiable.”
I said “That’s because it’s true.”
He said “No, you need to be able to show the conditions in which it could be proved false. Otherwise it’s irrational.”

So again, what are the conditions in which you would accept that the proposition that employment is exploitative could be proved false?

All your arguments, and the link you refer me to, rely on the labour theory of value (LTV) – that the whole value of the final product belongs as a matter of right to the worker.

However that is inconsistent with your earlier argument that property itself is unethical/unjust because it involves a right of exclusion of others from using it. If that first theory is right, then the worker does not have a right to the final product. So which one is it? Does the worker have a right to the final product or not?

What about where those selling their labour do have another option? Appeal to a horde of supposedly starving masses is vain. The vast majority of business owners in Australia come from the same socio-economic background as everyone else. Their employees have the same option to undertake the same risks, delays, responsibilities, stresses and taxes. They choose not to, because they prefer the advantages and disadvantages of employment, to those of business.

Marx said that capital “begets profit”. But it also begets loss. Capital by itself is inert. It has to be directed to this or that activity in order to make profit or loss. Deciding how to combine the factors of production is itself labour – the labour of the entrepreneur.

The world does not reward mere labour. The labour must be directed to producing something that satisfies human wants. Digging holes and filling them in again is worthless.

If the end product results in a loss, the worker doesn’t repay his wages. The entrepreneur undertakes the risk.

And if the end product is not sold until a year or more into the future, the worker doesn’t have to wait until it is sold to get his money, as the capitalist does. He gets paid now. If I offer you $10,000 now or in 2 years time, which do you choose? Future goods are always discounted to present goods - because it's fair, not because it's unfair.

If the worker and the capitalist were equal, neither would have any motivation to work with the other. Neither could benefit from it. No productive activity would take place. But they are exchanging incommensurate things – apples for oranges. The capitalist undertakes the risk and the delay, and does the labour of deciding how to combine the factors of production profitably without which the workers will not have a job – the original problem you’re trying to solve by welfare reform.

What about where the inequality of wealth is the other way? I once employed a guy who was much wealthier than me. According to your theory he was exploiting me, right?

And finally the value of the final product comes from whether the consumer prefers the products more than he prefers the price of it. The consumer doesn’t pay for mere labour. He pays for the satisfaction he intends to get from the product, which is the result of labour *directed to a certain end*.

You can’t employ a fine arts professor to make a truck by hand, and then sell it for the cost of his labour. The price of a gold nugget is not the price of the labour it took to dig it up. The price of a Van Gogh is not the price of the labour that went into it. The LTV is wrong.

No-one is arguing that we can produce things without labour. But you are arguing that the workers are entitled to the entire value when they are not responsible for producing it. You don’t expect the worker to work only for his costs, with no net benefit. Why should you expect anyone else

Profit results only if the capitalist is able to combine the factors of production so that the masses – the workers in their capacity as consumers – consider the end product more valuable than the factors. Profit is a measure, not of exploitation, but of the difference between how the masses valued the lesser satisfaction they derived from the original uncombined factors of production, versus the greater satisfaction that they derived from the final product.

The justification of the minimum wage is that employment below that rate should be illegal. But to be consistent, since you believe all employment is exploitative, and oppose abolishing the minimum wage, so you should support the illegalisation of all employment.

You wrongly describe yourself as an anarchist but cheerleading for the state at every stage. You don’t stand for freedom, you stand for ordering people around. Your bitter misrepresentations and personal argumentation only prove you have nothing better to offer.

Having failed to grasp the basics of human co-operation, what makes you think you can re-engineer society at will?

Bravo!
However I find it hard to think of a less productive use of your own labour than engaging with the author.

Proxy

LOL thanks yeah. It reminds me of Robert Kiyosaki "If you argue with an idiot, you've got two idiots."

<<So again, what are the conditions in which you would accept that the proposition that employment is exploitative could be proved false?>>

Please explain. What has falsifiability got to do with anything? Do your "theories" of capitalism stand up to falsability? LOL I suppose they do in a way. They HAVE failed and you still stand up for them. ;P

Im not even sure what the LTV is so I doubt I am promoting it and I know the Anarchists that wrote the FAQ arent. Shows you havent read it. They have certainly read all your sources. They focus heavily on the "austrian school" of capitalism and its extremism. Nozick, Locke, Rothbard, Hayek et al. They all get logically ripped apart for their airy fairy, nasty theories that reduce workers to the level of machines and consider them little better than slaves.
The LTV to me seems ridiculous. You cant spend hours making mud pies and then say they are worth whatever labour went into them. They have to be wanted by people before they are worth something.

What is inconsistent is your usage of the word "property". You talk as if land, production goods, consumer goods, capital, intellectual property and personal possessions are all exactly the same. Any sensible person can see they are not. The product of a workers day of labour is hardly the same as a rental property or a factory is it?

"Anarchists define "private property" (or just "property," for short) as state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to control and exploit others.
Specifically.
(1) the power to issue credit and currency, the basis of capitalist banking;
(2) land and buildings, the basis of landlordism;
(3) productive tools and equipment, the basis of industrial capitalism;
(4) ideas and inventions, the basis of copyright and patent ("intellectual property") royalties.

"Possession," on the other hand, is ownership of things that are not used to exploit others (e.g. a car, a refrigerator, a toothbrush, etc.). Thus many things can be considered as either property or possessions depending on how they are used."