this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2026
296 points (97.4% liked)

Not The Onion

21369 readers
1360 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] athatet@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That’s not what anarchy means.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de -4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Aatube@piefed.social 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Anarchy is also the abolition of property and profit incentives.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Which flat out will not work. There's nothing in place that can prevent it.

[–] Aatube@piefed.social 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] BygoneNeutrino@lemmy.world 0 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

If an anarchist revolution did happend, a sub-group of people would form a government and murder/enslave the people who don't.

[–] Aatube@piefed.social 1 points 16 hours ago

assuming they can fight off the revolutionaries who just overthrew the much bigger government, that is

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] sobchak@programming.dev 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not saying no one ever thought about it. I'm saying there's a reason it isn't a used form of government anywhere. It's absurd

[–] sobchak@programming.dev 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)
[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 5 hours ago

Yeah..... Did you really check over the wiki? Lol.

A handful of very, very small places. I clicked one of the links (Rojava) and it said they weren't even anarchists. It was a society based around democratic confederalism.

You could make anarchy work when there like 500 people and you walk the ones who don't play nice 5 miles down the goat path and "kick them out" and your on 500 acres of land y'all own from a real country that you're a part of. Using money. It's stupid and naive to think it can be done on a country wide scale, or anything remotely close to it in this day and age.

[–] Aatube@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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).

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

That's like democracy, and you can see where it led. It's just a fast track to the corruption we have in the US now.

[–] Aatube@piefed.social 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

could you explain how this would lead to corruption? and at the least, it's better than electoralism, which is US democracy

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 4 hours ago

All right, let's go. Let's say the entire damned country is now anarchists.

Where do you get your transportation?

Military?

Road repairs?

Education?

How is it decided that someone has too

much, and what do you do with them?

Are you going to have enough people becoming skilled nurses and doctors if they aren't compensated for it, or are they allowed more stuff than you?

What are the numbers for the people in the country, percentage wise that don't want to be in an anarchist society? What happens if they start selling drugs and cutting people in and more people start to enjoy getting to have more stuff than others? They start buying votes with favors?

Who is going to be the decision makers of any large scale projects that need done? Are you going to have society vote on how to build a sewage system, or is it going to be one person who has designed them before making the decisions and being in charge?

What happens when China or Russia or Canada or whoever else just come over and invade? Gonna barter in a military by trading for corn?

[–] athatet@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It’s being against unethical hierarchies. So not what you said, like, at all.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de -2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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?

[–] athatet@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We kill them and take their money. Ezpz

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

So... We just like waiting for the exact right moment?