Good question, and it depends. I don't think there can or should be a certain arbitrary age, I think it depends on what the contract has to deal with, the type of business or individual proposing the contract, and the voice of the parents should certainly be greatly considered. In many cases, signing a contract with the parent instead of the child would be greatly preferable.

In anarchy dominant persons will try to take control over others, some might group together forming gangs. Rivaling gangs will battle for control over certain regions. The winner holds control over that region, deciding what people do.

That's how forms of 'government' are automatically formed out of anarchy and why anarchy is an unstable way for people to live together. On the long run observations indicate that it will evolve into democracy

I'm saying that the press we have now will not magically be better when power starts to concentrate in corporations. The idea that we would be better off if corporations could do whatever they want and it would all be better than the situation now where they are some what contained by the government is silly.

How would a corporation prevent the world from knowing about child slavery? You really can't understand how a super Nike or a super Apple could use their essentially limitless resources to control the press? Especially when there aren't laws in place? Really?

Simple question, at what age can the government start taxing children?

lmao

If a child is making enough money to be taxed why shouldn't they be taxed?

what????


Governments empower corporations. Why was Fannie and Freddy bailed out? Because they just have so much power as a result of being a business? No, of course not. The government bailed them out with money stolen from tax payers. Why does Monsanto have patents on all sorts of seeds, and how are they able to sue farmers out of existence when they find their genetics on their land? Is it a result of businesses having some sort of magical power? No, the government empowers that.

The government empowers corporations, not restrain them.



Well, huge corporations that are empowered by government control the media now, and if you think our press is free and unbiased, you're delusional imo.

It's pretty hard to suppress something like the internet.

Why should they be taxed? They were just born on this continent. It is completely wrong for the government to run up huge debt, and then forcefully steal from children when they become working age to pay towards it.

Aren't you supposed to be against child slavery? Why the **** should children be taxed?



They shouldn't be taxed because their birth was a random happenstance, they didn't choose to be born, and they had no voice in creating the policies they are being taxed to support, and it is completely wrong for individuals to claim the authority to tax other people, simply because they happened to be born on the continent they claim ownership over.

FYP butt-hole.

Now your just being an idiot.
Taxation isn't theft. Saying it is marks you as a kook.
It is my understanding that people are taxed on income they earn not because they were born. Do you not understand the basics of US taxation? In fact, I believe families get additional tax breaks due to the size of their family. You really don't seem to understand what you hate do you?

Corporations are the inevitable end result of growing wealth and power of capitalism. Government restricts corporate growth and merger in ways that wouldnt happen in ACism so it would inevitable end in either democratic government like all anarchies do or enough peopel drunk the kool aid that it ends up with mega-corps which are basically private owned states. One where children are born into corporate debt and everyone pays taxes to Cocaburton by working there.

ACism as you envisage it is not a form of existence that can ever last.

I totally already made that point phill

Anarchy is UNSTABLE

Oh, I see you're trying this argument over here too. It's still dumb.

Missed it. High five then, I guess.

Please explain to me how taxation is not theft.

Kerowo - Just as a heads up you're getting into Lirva's favorite area. Where he can just use simple semantics to make what he thinks is a deep point.

Most of us realize the world is more complex and try to talk about those complexities but Lirva doesn't participate in that part. He just wants to jump up and down and rant about how it sucks that he pays taxes and can't smoke weed.

You're describing statism.




We've had democracy in the US for over two hundred years. How many wars, economic recessions and depressions have happened? You call that stability?

Because words have meanings. Taxation is tax.

You keep saying this and it just isn't true. Governments around the world prevent their citizens from viewing certain websites and topics fairly easily. Sure some very capable individuals are able to get around these barriers, but generally it's easy and effective for government to limit Internet access.

Show your work.





The government encourages corporate growth, by having corporate tax breaks, supporting intellectual property, and providing bailouts to the large failing corporations.







People constantly provide "arguments" telling how terrible Anarchy would be, and they provide examples of terrible things that actually happen now under government.

Children are born now into government debt, and are forced to pay it by the government. Isn't this terrible, Phill?

Explain how.

Then I'll go rape someone and call it making love. Cool, right?

You're making my point for me.

It's hard to suppress the internet, but some governments are able to do it to a degree. Governments, not businesses. You don't see Apple preventing the people in China from seeing certain things on the internet, it's the Chinese government that does that.

I was simply refuting the incorrect statement that it is difficult to suppress the Internet, period.

Pretty rich for you to demand explanation after you dodge so many other issues. But here you go: