War tax resistance started long before the internet — in people’s living rooms, where you had to know someone who was already doing it in order to get involved. […] Last spring, Jacoby, who had never been a tax resister before, took over for an older woman who ran the group for 40 years.
In extreme cases, tax protesters could face wage garnishment, property seizures or prison time, though criminal prosecutions are rare, according to University of Chicago law professor David Weisbach. “They don’t often do that, but they can. And so it’s a form of civil disobedience that comes with all the consequences of civil disobedience, which is that you are subject to legal sanctions, and they can be quite severe,” Weisbach said. “It’s certainly one way of protesting, but it’s a risky way, and it could be a very, very costly way.”
Weisbach said the tax protest movement isn’t necessarily about making a dent in the federal budget. “The whole point of civil disobedience is to change people’s views about the matter,” he said. “Martin Luther King, that’s what he did. They march on a bridge, they break the law, the law was unjust, and they changed people’s views about race. But did he directly change a law? Not so much. He changed people’s views, which caused laws to change.”
(Posting here not because I think it’s funny, but because it seems like satire exploring extremes of protest that aren’t mutual aid and on such overground groups that have been around for so long. Satirical actions need not be reprehensible.)
No. It’s exactly what it means. There would be no government oversight for safety or regulation. No ability to prevent or slow concentrations of power, and no entity to prevent the rich and powerful from overtaking any markets. Anarchy is an extreme lack of government size and oversight.
Anarchy is also the abolition of property and profit incentives.
Which flat out will not work. There’s nothing in place that can prevent it.
If organizing has gotten to the point where an anarchist revolution has happened, then enough of that spirit will be left so that the people are brave enough to stop those who try to create property again out of nothing. Anarchy is governance by society and social pressure instead of government force.
If an anarchist revolution did happend, a sub-group of people would form a government and murder/enslave the people who don’t.
assuming they can fight off the revolutionaries who just overthrew the much bigger government, that is
That’s the breeding ground for violence and power. Some people will always want more and that’s a simple recipe to cause violence to make it happen.
There’s a lot of anarchist theory and practice. Some implementations have means against that kind of stuff. It’s not like nobody ever thought about it.
You can only gain power if you manage to take it from others, who won’t just bolt away and surrender their agency. Instead, for the hungry you say, authority should be enough for such self-actualization. The difference to power is that instead of forceful mandates, authority is enabled by well-earned community trust, which is far more gratifying (and revocable).
It’s being against unethical hierarchies. So not what you said, like, at all.
And how is that supposed to happen? A kumbeya moment where all the billionaires hold hands with everyone else and divest away all the shit they have?
We kill them and take their money. Ezpz
So… We just like waiting for the exact right moment?