“Please explain. What has falsifiability got to do with anything?”

If a proposition is not falsifiable, then it's not a rational proposition. If its proponent cannot say under what conditions it could be proved false, then it can’t be disproved, not because it’s true - but because it’s irrational.

I once met an Indonesian who said “There’s a guy at my work who does black magic.” I said “How do you know?” He said “Well that’s just it –he’s so devious he does it without leaving any evidence!”

That’s an example of a belief that is not falsifiable, because he wouldn’t accept any disproof. The lack of evidence or reason is taken as proving the proposition.

Or suppose someone says “Homosexuality is a sin.”

How could you disprove it?
Let’s say you ask “Define sin.”
And he says “It’s what homosexual do.”
That’s circular. The belief is just, homosexuality is a sin because homosexuality is a sin. It’s not falsifiable.

Or suppose they say “Sin is what God doesn’t like.” So then you say, “And does God like homosexuality?” And the answer comes back “No.”

The deep structure of your argument is similar.
“Employment is exploitative.” (Now exploitative is not a term of economic science. It cannot be objectively defined. It’s a moral, or a moralistic, term. It imports a negative moral connotation.)

So the dialogue goes like this:
“Employment is exploitative.”
“Prove it.”
“How could anyone doubt it? There’s no need to demonstrate it. It just is.”
“You can’t argue that employment is exploitative because it’s exploitative. That’s circular.”
“No, I’m saying it’s exploitative because it involves inequality.”
“And the problem with such inequality is…?”
“It’s exploitative.”
“So employment is exploitative because it’s exploitative?”
“Anyone who doesn’t agree is an evil bastard – in favour of exploitation!”
“Well you haven’t established that it *is* exploitative yet. You argued that property is immoral because it involves exclusion. So how could employment be exploitative if the employee doesn’t have the right to the value of the final product anyway?”
“Because employment involves the exploitation of others.”

And so on. You’re just going in circles. It doesn't meet the threshold criteria of logical argumentation. It’s just rampant moralising. There is no way that reason can penetrate such circularity. The deep structure of your argument is similar to that of the fundamentalist Christian condemning homosexuality – you just condemn the morality of common behaviour, but when asked to justify your condemnation, you can only circularly insist that "it is because it is."

And yes, the arguments I make do have to be falsifiable too. Indeed the difference between my theories and yours is, I can show you how mine can be disproved. (I'm talking about my theories, not your hyperbole misrepresentation of them.) And I'll be glad to show you how they can be falsified or refuted.

However there is no way I can begin to defend them while you reserve the right to just resort to name-calling and circularity, which is all your argument amounts to.

So again, what disproof would you accept of the proposition that employment is exploitative? You must be able to say so, or admit that you can't.

And the anarchist website *does* pre-suppose the labour theory of value, because if the worker is not entitled to the value of the final product, then employment is not necessarily exploitative.

As to you’re being an anarchist, it’s one thing to recognise that we can’t necessarily change the world, but it’s another to compromise your principles. You are arguing both in this thread and others to make the state bigger, so you’re not an anarchist, you’re an unreconstructed statist and stop deceiving yourself.

Once again you misrepresent and ignore what I have said.
I will repeat it again.
"it is exploitative because of inequality in wealth and power that allows capitalists to profit from the productivity of those that have no option but to sell themselves into slavery for a given period each day."
Could you please address what I actually said?

Whats the problem with inequality? Are you serious? Do you think it would be a good world to live in if inequality was the norm. If one person held all the worlds wealth and the rest had to bow down to them for a living? You critisise me for moralising well I critisise you for your amoral and frankly inhuman attitude.

This obsession with circularity is rich given capitalisms circular reasoning on everything from prices (people need to know the price before they can decide its "marginal utility" to them, but marginal utility is what is supposed to explain "price") to liberty (people must have "liberty" to own property but property is, by definition, about reducing everyones freedom except the property owners). You havent shown any circularity in my argument because you keep misrepresenting what I say.

I still dont get what you expect from me to falsify my assertion that wage slavery is exploitative. It is exploitative by its very nature. The same way the sun is hot by its very nature. How would you falsify that statement? And if you cant then doesnt that mean, by your standards, that it is untrue? Do you really think the sun is cold? In science falsability is a concept aimed at getting the truth. I allow my theories to be tested and if they are incorrect they will be proven so. It does not mean that if

I cant falsify something it must be untrue. Indeed it means the opposite. I think this falsability lark is a trap to distract and dissemble and avoid the real issues. ie The inequality of wealth and power that enriches the few at the expense of the many. A situation that no one with eyes can avoid noticing is the standard in the world currently.

You are right. The faq writers do follow the LTV but for some reason (space most likely) that section has been left out of the latest version. I was wrong to say I dont agree with the LTV. Fooled by the propaganda of the likes of you. Here is what they say about the LTV and its misrepresentation by capitalists.

"Many right-"libertarian" and mainstream economists assert that the labour theory of value removes demand from the determination of price. A favourite example is that of the "mud pie" -- if it takes the same labour as an apple pie to make, they ask, surely it has the same value (price)? These assertions are incorrect as the LTV bases itself on supply and demand and seeks to explain the dynamics of prices and so recognises (indeed bases itself on the fact) that individuals make their own decisions based upon their subjective needs (in the words of Proudhon, "utility is the necessary condition for exchange." [System of Economical Contradictions, p. 77]). What the LTV seeks to explain is price (i.e. exchange value) -- and a good can only have an exchange value if others desire it (i.e. has a use value for them and they seek to exchange money or goods for it). Thus the example of the "mud pie" is a classic straw man argument -- the "mud pie" does not have an exchange value as it has no use value to others and is not subject to exchange. In other words, if a commodity cannot be exchanged, it cannot have an exchange value (and so price). As Proudhon argued, "nothing is exchangeable if it be not useful." [Op. Cit., p. 85] "

Once again you expose

your hypocracy by telling me I compromise my principles. When are you going to start living up to yours? You hate the state and taxation but you dont refuse to pay tax do you? When are you going to live up to your principles? When you write your next post from gaol as a tax rebel then I will take your criticism seriously.

"Anarchists are anti-authoritarians because they believe that no human being should dominate another. Domination is inherently degrading and demeaning, since it submerges the will and judgment of the dominated to the will and judgment of the dominators, thus destroying the dignity and self-respect that comes only from personal autonomy. Moreover, domination makes possible and generally leads to exploitation, which is the root of inequality, poverty, social breakdown, hate and war."

This thread was about making the state smaller not bigger. Where did I ever say "make the state bigger"? Close the job network I said. Get rid of all those centrelink staff tasked with spying on and punishing those who do not have a job I said. How is that "making the state bigger"?

How about answering a few of my points and even going back to some of your own. Like yesterdays question (completely ignored) about a definition of exploitation. Is that correct or do you have a problem with the definition? After all that is the nub of what we are talking about.

Oh and lastly thanks for bothering to debate with me. The process of composing my replys helps me understand my position (and yours) better. I actually think we arent that far apart really. If only you could see that the criticisms you have of the state apply just as strongly to capitalism. Either people are free from "all" coercion, exploitation and theft or they are just replacing one oppressor for another.

"Under capitalism the worker regards themself as free; but they are grossly mistaken;they are free only when they sign their contract with their boss. As soon as it is signed, slavery overtakes them and they are nothing but an order taker."

Mikk, a statement is falsifiable if there is a theoretical way to show it to be wrong IF it is wrong. The concept of falsifiability is central to the scientific method, which depends on trying to falsify hypotheses to advance. If an hypothesis withstands the scrutiny, it may be upgraded to a "theory", but there will still be someone somewhere trying to show it falls down on some point.

It works like this: you say "the earth is flat". I say, how can you prove that? You say, I'll walk to the edge. I say "bye, don't fall off" Some time later you (or Magellan) come wandering in from the opposite direction you left in. "ahah!" we say. That must mean the hypothesis is wrong. so what do we replace it with? the earth is octahedral? No worries, lets see if we can find the edges. No edges? wrong again, let's try spherical.

And so on.

It's not too hard to grasp, is it?