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.)
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?
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnarchism/comments/ny5q74/where_do_tanks_come_from/ has been debated to death so check out this link’s comments for far more well-written explanations of how big industry like military happens, and of course defense.
I don’t see how transportation and hospitals is going to be harder under anarchism. Tons of people aspire to be doctors including children who’ve no concept of monetary value; all those medical dramas weren’t for naught.
The most popular replacement for capital markets is personal interest and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy . https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionI.html#seci413 ? Well, do you want to do your chores? Probably not. But still, somebody has to do them, so eventually you do. Especially in damnedentireanarchist country, where people know how to stand up and have historically done so to overthrow a government.
Education administration would be the same as any other organization under anarchism, but there is a good question here about curriculum. The short answer is that the educators would decide on their syllabus and of course their curriculum as well. Of course, broadening views would be better, so like other organizations under anarchisms, different schools can schedule councils that they send rotating delegates to. (Anarchism is the abolition of hierarchy, not necessarily organization.) In general, standards can also still exist under anarchism. For how that works out you can take a look at protocols in open source and other open standards.
votes?
(English) Wikipedia can be looked onto as an example. It’s fairly anarchistically organized (except, of course, its military is the Wikimedia Foundation’s legal department, which isn’t applicable to an anarchist society. for what is applicable see first paragraph). In summary, enwiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus is built through discussion logs that are summarized by someone people trust who hasn’t participated in the discussion. That summarizer decides what arguments are most grounded in community norms and then which arguments are more popular to decide what the consensus is (or isn’t. “No consensus” is an option. People are aware they can’t just bash at a brick wall, too, so if there’s an urgent-ish problem they know to eventually agree/concede on something.). You can also do reviews—a discussion where another independent summarizer uninvolved with both discussions will summarize whether the community thinks the initial summary was reasonable.
There is an extension in applying this to society: If anyone opposes (not just disagreeing while conceding) with that summary/decision, they may instead form a different association for the purpose of this task and execute their vision elsewhere.
This is actually the most well-known example of socialism in action in a capitalist society, only surpassed (by miles) by libraries. Besides usual sewer socialism where the government focuses on public works, there’s independent direct action like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Anarchist_Road_Care where anarchists, fed up with broken roads, “illegally” fixed them themselves.
Property doesn’t exist.
Assuming the question means “What do we do to those who don’t want to follow anarchism?”: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionI.html#seci57 . TL;DR: No “taxes” but no communal services for you either. Crime would be dealt with as crime. People who work against a social structure kinda get ostracized no matter if anarchism or capitalism, and in anarchism where the social circles are the government (as far as provision of services is concerned), ostracism is far more severe.
An interesting case study is DAANES, whose “democratic confederalism” adopted many ideas from libertarian socialism—the most mainstream school of anarchism, and the one I’m talking about—and whose participants sort of conceded to see how it works out. Social and educative forces are far more compelling than you might imagine.