TheKwas

Yeah, being able to serve in the military and being able to drive isn't an indication of "growing up". Anyways, most seem to be missing the point of this idea.The idea isn't to get lots of 16 year old people to vote, it's to get people involved in politics in general earlier so that they will vote by the time they are 18.

Let me vote guys >:C

yeah, but human behavior is predominantly irrational. a collective opinion in that scale is unrealistic. Well shit, I guess democracy is a failure as well... I was actually saying that the people should be able to decide what is done with the resources and how they should be allocated. If they choose to straight up share them equally, so be it. It's more legit because everyone has an equal say. An election isn't legit if only 20% of the populace are allowed to vote. If there's two guys walking down a street and they both come arcoss two 5 dollar bills at the same time and pick them up at the same time, you don't advocate having one guy punch the other in the face and running off with both bills. You try and talk it out and come to a mutual agreement of what to do with the bills. They can split the money 50/50, or whatever they decide. Wealth can't even exist without resources... how exactly does one "earn" the earth's natural resources? That's the question I've been asking from the start. How exactly does the Bay company hold any legit ownership when their property rights were granted by a power that didn't have any legit claim other the resources in question anyway? How do you think resource ownership should be decided?

Well played.

I'm too young, but I refuse to be left out of internet polls as well as the election process.

Poundage and props, although associated, are not the same thing.

I don't really shake hands... it's all about just give the guy a pound.

Officially, North and South Korea are still at war...

Fair enough. And what do you do in any struggle? You try and solve it using rational and not using the "might is right" method. Labour without a material produces nothing. If I jump up and down for an hour, I'm just really tired. If I jump up and down squishing grapes, I produce wine. Since all material esstentially comes from the earth's resources, we must first address the issue of who owns the resources before we can address who owns the product of those resources. Since the resources simply exist, and there is no labour infused with them, they can't not be owned by any single person in the Lockean sense, as Locke's definition of material property relies on the assumption that labour is fused with a material. The classic Locke arguement is that anyone can use the resources at any time they what and for any purpose, as it's free game until someone's labour is fused with it. I don't think I have to point out the impossiblity of implamenting that in reality. It's not rocket science that not anyone should be able to cut down the rain forest without consulting with anyone else. So what other options are there? How about collective ownership? Since no individual group can make legit claim to it, the collective is the only other group that can by default. How the collective decides to manage these resources, is of course, up to the collective. Whether they want to directly control these resources via socialism or grant private companies the ability to control the resources on the behalf of the collective. But since the resources are ultimately the property of everyone, any work of labour you do with that material you do with permission of the collective, meaning that employers do have responsiblities and you're ownership of anything isn't "absolute". You do not have the right to do whatever you like with your possesions. Legit hierarchy can be a good thing, unneeded hierarchy is a bad thing.

Your essay was good, I just wanted to drive some main points home.

Exactly how does Anarchism only work if it has a political system to "exploit"? Also, the whole point of anarchy isn't to abolish government, it's to abolish hiearchy in general. There is still governance in Anarchy, just not by a hiearchical-strutured institution. I take it you're coming from a Lockean point of view, correct? We have inherient right to ourselves, and thus our labour, and thus the products of our labour. One of the many problems with Lockean philosophy is that labour alone is useless and doesn't produce ANYTHING. Labour is only productive when merged with natural or raw resources, which exist without any labour infested within them. Since the natural resources are without labour, they are essentially unownable going by Lockean theory. The only entity, by default, that can claim ownership over such resources is the collective. Thus, at the root of individual ownership is the acknowledgment that what you possess you possess at the agreement of the collective. Please, exactly how does one determine who is and isn't worthy of wealth? The Markets? Please. Capitalism has a nature rate of unemployment at all times, no matter how "deserving" or "worthy" that percentage of the workforce is. If you honestly believe that some is undeserving of wealth simply because he's a victim of the market system, I almost pity you. The reason anarchists support socialism is because it's the only way to avoid the hiearchy and wage-slavery of Capitalism, which is by definition, not anarchist. I'm quite willing to put my labour at work and create a product, I actually do it quite often, but I'm unsupportive of having to put my labour at work in a hiearchical-structured workplace where my boss is able to leech of my labour and manipulate me simply because he claimed possesion on raw materials due to force It works.

There's a reason why High schools have smaller classes than Universities, because most of the students aren't ready for the 500 student classes. Either action in this case hurts the students (either continuing with large class sizes, or delaying their education for a few weeks), and no one can be sure which one will have a bigger effect on the students.

Why should less-educated people earn all that much less than educated people exactly? Even if they work just as hard and their labour is needed just as much?

Add to list: Fly Pan AM Unwed Sailor 1-speed bike

What do you have against democracy? What would you propose instead?

Not by any definition I know of. Anarchy - Society of no rulers. Socialism - Society where resources are owned and controlled by the public/workers. Capitalism - Society where the resources and privately owned by individuals. Since Economic choices affect the general public, capitalism entails "economic rulers". Therefore, Most schools of Anarchism promote the public/workers owning resources throught decentralized, accountable and directly democratic co-operatives, communes, or syndicates (and generally allocated through a dencentralized planned economy). It's a myth that anarchists are just against hiearchical government, they are against any social relationships that are built hiearchically, that includes economic relationships. Not really, for most of them it's just a choice for a lesser evil. It's either having resources publicly owned, yet hiearchically organized, or having resources hiearchically organized AND privately owned. 1/2 is better than 0/2.

Anarchists are socialists.

Name an example.

Really? When was the last time the Liberals got more than 50% of the votes?

Hahahahaha Hitcherhiker's guide to the Universe, CLASSIC!

Spelling kracker with a "c" just goes to prove how white you really are.

Obviously Japan had the interal battles between the mighty and proud Samuari and the sneaky and cunning Ninjas. It was a power struggle for control of the japanese warrior underground.

You do? The masses can't take care of themselves through co-operatives, syndicates and communes?

I suggest adding a "r".

Japan has ninjas silly. China has Shaolin Monks.