I grasp the idea, indeed support it and see it as vital to good science and investigation.
So why is it up to me to falsify my own theory? Isnt that up to others?
Put up or shut up I say. Prove wage slavery is not exploitative.
Prove inequality and vast disparity of wealth is the best and most efficient way to organise society.
I am putting forward the hypothesis it is up to others to prove I am wrong.

Mikk:"So why is it up to me to falsify my own theory? Isnt that up to others?"

It's up to you to create an hypothesis that is falsifiable. What others do is up to them, but if you make claims that are unable to be falsified, then they're no better than fairy tales, sadly.

Once you get into the mindset, this is a very useful tool to aid rational thinking.

My hypothesis is falsifiable.
One only has to show that inequality in wealth and power does not lead those with the wealth and power to exploit those without it. I posit that the evidence all around us, in every firm and every workplace, shows that vast disparity in power and wealth leads directly to workers being unfairly used to enrich the bosses and owners of capital.

mikk:"Prove wage slavery is not exploitative.
Prove inequality and vast disparity of wealth is the best and most efficient way to organise society."

Those are three different issues and none is able to be falsified in the way you suggested.

I think the problem is that you see exploitation where I see a mutuality of interests leading to a cooperative relationship in which both the employee and the employer gain by their association. Certainly there is a possibility that either party could unfairly exploit the relationship, but not usually for very long before the other gets fed up with having the rough end of the pineapple. As you point out, the evidence is all around us.

Your second claim cannot be falsified because it is too nebulous. How do I show what a "best" society looks like? How do you define it?

Ditto for your third claim - what sort of efficiency is important? Economic activity, health delivery, education, defence, baby production? What do we sacrifice for efficiency? What do we gain by it?

A falsifiable statement must be definite and must be clearly able to be tested. I'm afraid yours aren't.

“Oh and lastly thanks for bothering to debate with me. The process of composing my replys helps me understand my position (and yours) better.”

Thanks.

“I actually think we aren’t that far apart really.”

I agree.

“If only you could see that the criticisms you have of the state apply just as strongly to capitalism.”

That’s the issue. If they did, it would disprove my argument. (See? I’ve shown how my argument can be falsified.)

I am not wilfully misrepresenting or ignoring you. I’m asking you to consider the possibility that you may be mistaken, just as you want me to do the same. There is a need to establish common ground, otherwise we’re not having a rational discussion but just talking past each other. The general issues can’t be resolved without resolving the prior threshold issue of logical argumentation, because if we can’t do that, there can be neither proof nor disproof, but only articles of faith.

“So why is it up to me to falsify my own theory?”

No-one’s asking to you falsify your own theory. We’re asking you to show how it could be falsified.

For example, let’s say I declare “The sun is hot.” And you say “How could that assertion be falsified?” I say “well if you take the temperature for one hour with an accurate thermometer at noon at the equator on a clear day, and the temperature is 5 degrees Celsius, then that would disprove my statement.”

But we can’t do that with your argument. You can’t show how it could be disproved under any conditions.

“One only has to show that inequality in wealth and power does not lead those with the wealth and power to exploit those without it.”
You’ve got “exploit” on both sides of the equation again: “employment is exploitative because it involves inequality of wealth and power, and inequality of wealth and power is exploitative. In other words, employment is exploitative because it’s exploitative.

Your argument is set up so it can only conclude one way.

For example my argument that employment can be falsified as follows…

… (using this definition of exploitation: “a persistent social relationship in which certain persons are being mistreated or unfairly used for the benefit of others”.)

From this definition, to prove employment exploitative, there is a need to demonstrate mistreatment or unfairness. However the fact that the relationship is voluntary i.e. not under duress, demonstrates that the employee prefers having, to not having a given employment.

Therefore employment could be proved exploitative by:
a) showing that it is under duress, or
b) showing that the employee is ethically entitled to more than the market rate, or
c) showing the consent was not real, because procured by deception.

An example of a) is military conscription – if you don’t agree to do the work, you get shot or imprisoned. Another example is forced labour – like the Burmese forced to work in the ruby mines; or the Japanese army’s ‘comfort women’ in WWII; or the press-gangs of the 18th century. Even if they are paid, and it is therefore employment, still it’s exploitative, because unfair, because non-consensual.

An example of b) is the labour theory of value. If it could be shown that the employee is morally entitled to more than an amount determined by the consent of the parties, then that would show that employment is exploitative. (Hence the argument over the LTV – if it could be proved, it would disprove my argument.)

An example of c) is in human trafficking: e.g. a third-world girl is offered a job as a housekeeper in a different state, but when she gets there it turns out it’s in a brothel, and she can’t get out without repaying a “debt”.

And there are also other ways my argument could be disproved.

But remember, at this stage, the issue is not whether or not you agree with my arguments. The point is only this: I have shown how my argument could be disproved; you haven’t. Therefore your argument is not logical.

I can defend all my arguments and refute all yours, but you must first be able to get across Logical Argumentation 101.