#what happened to no taxation without representation

[therabbitthatpostthings]

The amount of things I could do if I didn’t have constant panic attack everyday of how I’m going to pay for anything.

I went to art school (already a bad idea) and would do conventions often. I would go days without eating just so I could use the convention money to pay for groceries. Half the time I wasn’t even breaking even on my sales. That was on top of school work and commissions. All that just to have a financial emergency after graduation.

People that “don’t want to work” if they were handed money are people who are overworked and practically killing themselves slowly trying to survive.

Meanwhile I met some amazing artist who were already industry standard and just went to school for the experience and the degree. Even during Covid they weren’t hurting for money. That’s why the artsy rich kid is such a common stereotype.

To create, that’s human nature.

[mariacallous]

In 2024, wealth concentration rose to an all-time high. According to Forbes’ Billionaires List, not only are there more billionaires than ever—2,781—but those billionaires are also richer than ever, with an aggregate worth of $14.2 trillion. This is a trend that looks set to continue unabated. A recent report from the financial data company Altrata estimated that about 1.2 million individuals who are worth more than $5 million will pass on a collective wealth of almost $31 trillion over the next decade.

Discontentment and concern over the consequences of extreme wealth in our society is growing. Senator Bernie Sanders, for instance, stated that the “obscene level of income and wealth inequality in America is a profoundly moral issue.” In a joint op-ed for CNN in 2023, Democratic congresswoman Barbara Lee and Disney heiress Abigail Disney wrote that “extreme wealth inequality is a threat to our economy and democracy.” In 2024, when the board of Tesla put to vote a $56 billion pay package for Elon Musk, some major shareholders voted against it, declaring that such a compensation level was “absurd” and “ridiculous.”

In 2025, the fight against rising wealth inequality will be high on the political agenda. In July 2024, the G20—the world’s 20 biggest economies—agreed to work on a proposal by Brazil to introduce a new global “billionaire tax” that would levy a 2 percent tax on assets worth more than $1 billion. This would raise an estimated $250 billion a year. While this specific proposal was not endorsed in the Rio declaration, the G20 countries agreed that the super rich should be taxed more.

Progressive politicians won’t be the only ones trying to address this problem. In 2025, millionaires themselves will increasingly mobilize and put pressure on political leaders. One such movement is Patriotic Millionaires, a nonpartisan group of multimillionaires who are already publicly campaigning and privately lobbying the American Congress for a guaranteed living wage for all, a fair tax system, and the protection of equal representation. “Millionaires and large corporations—who have benefited most from our country’s assets—should pay a larger percentage of the tab for running the country,” reads their value statement. Members include Abigail Disney, former BlackRock executive Morris Pearl, legal scholar Lawrence Lessig, screenwriter Norman Lear, and investor Lawrence Benenson.

Another example is TaxMeNow, a lobby group founded in 2021 by young multimillionaires in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland which also advocates for higher wealth taxation. Its most famous member is the 32-year old Marlene Engelhorn, descendant of Friedrich Engelhorn, founder of German pharma giant BASF. She recently set up a council made up of 50 randomly selected Austrian citizens to decide what should happen to her €25 million inheritance. “I have inherited a fortune, and therefore power, without having done anything for it,” she said in a statement. “If politicians don’t do their job and redistribute, then I have to redistribute my wealth myself.”

Earlier this year, Patriotic Millionaires, TaxMeNow, Oxfam, and another activist group called Millionaires For Humanity formed a coalition called Proud to Pay More, and addressed a letter to global leaders during the annual gathering of the World Economic Forum in Davos. Signed by hundreds of high-net-worth individuals—including heiress Valerie Rockefeller, actor Simon Pegg, and filmmaker Richard Curtis—the letter stated: “We all know that ‘trickle down economics’ has not translated into reality. Instead it has given us stagnating wages, crumbling infrastructure, failing public services, and destabilized the very institution of democracy.” It concluded: “We ask you to take this necessary and inevitable step before it’s too late. Make your countries proud. Tax extreme wealth.” In 2025, thanks to the nascent movement of activist millionaires, these calls will grow even louder.

[tobiasdrake]

Musing on the creation myth of the United States. It says a lot to me that. Like.

We whitewash the shit out of our history. We don't like to talk about the Native Americans. They just sort of disappear at a certain point. What happened to them? Who's to say. Maybe aliens. I don't know.

We don't like to talk about slavery. We say slavery was an Original Sin our forefathers inherited from Europe, and we were innocent and naive babies who didn't know any better. But then one day Abraham Lincoln singlehandedly ended slavery worldwide. That is all. That is the complete history of American slavery. Do not look any deeper.

The War of 1812 has basically been decanonized. It wasn't a proud moment of nationalist fervor so you just don't get to know about it.

The Civil War? Oh, that was about states' rights. It was a minor disagreement over how much power the federal government should have over states, a discussion that rages to this day.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave this one speech this one time that ended racism forever. That speech was the beginning and the end of all civil rights movements, and no minority has ever been persecuted since.

There's just.

There's so much of our history that has been doctored to present a favorable impression of our country. It's all propagandized to shit and back to hide the ugly elements from view.

...

But they will tell you to your face that the Revolutionary War was about taxation. We threw their fucking tea in the harbor to protest their taxes. It was about our right to freedom from ever having to pay taxes to a federal government! Nothing else! Just ending taxation! NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!! GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!!!

And I think that says a lot about the strangehold that capitalist rhetoric has on the American public consciousness, that they haven't rewritten it. That our leaders are proud of it. And that most of us never even question it either.

[nothorses]

I've never understood why so many usamericans (especially on the east coast) shout from the rooftops about "no taxation without representation" when immigrants are taxed but can't vote, when felons are taxed but can't vote, like you were saying happens to puerto rican people, they're taxed but can't vote. Even when minors make enough money they can be taxed without the ability to vote. It seems a ridiculous saying when there are so many exceptions. But maybe that's just a product of me growing up near Boston with two immigrant parents who were taxed but couldn't vote, and having to hear about the Boston Tea Party near constantly.

Yeah it's kind of the whole Thing that every single value the US claims to be built on is in fact nowhere to be found in actual practice, and never has been.

On a very basic level, "democracy" is supposed to be about justice; specifically, the fair & equitable distribution of power and resources. But that understanding of democracy isn't present in the US, and it hasn't ever been, not least of which because the whole country is a settler-colonial project that only exists at all because of genocide. And then there's the issue of chattel slavery, voting rights (many of which are still present today), and the list goes on.

Which sucks, because a lot of those ideas are actually solid, and are now so sullied but their association with the US's complete and utter failure to abide them- while insisting that their failure is actually success- that it's extremely difficult to even talk about things like "democracy" without spending precious time and energy clarifying what that word actually means.

[sillyllynx]

Murder Drones as quotes from discord

Pt.1

─── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ───── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ───── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ───── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ───── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ──

Cyn-tail: Just got fanum taxes

Uzi: My sister in Robo-christ, I am NOT awake enough to deal with this

V: No one is awake enough for taxes

Cyn-tail: I was talking about brainrot

V: My point still stands

Uzi: Brainrot is tax. It's taxing on my brain

Doll (replacing Cyn) : Налогообложение без представительства (Taxation without representation)

─── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ───── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ───── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ───── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ───── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ──

J: Ahem..I'm a woman, thank you

─── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ───── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ───── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ───── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ───── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ──

Lizzy: THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DON'T LET JESUS TAKE THE WHEEL

─── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ───── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ───── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ───── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ───── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ──

N: NO NOT THAT GUY FROM THAT ONE MOVIE 😭✋

─── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ───── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ───── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ───── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ───── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ──

Khan: I leave for an hour and there's child abuse

─── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ───── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ───── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ───── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ───── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ──

I like to think all of this would've happened within the same situation

Anygays, that's all for now

[utilitycaster]

Colonizer Gods vs their oppressed mortal creations has a lot more in common with the narrative of the American Revolution than it does with any anticolonialist narrative: Children of the original colonizers, who didn't choose to settle in colonized lands, but were born and raised there and have never known another home. Who developed their own cultures and political structures, but were still subject to distant authority figures. Those authorities didn't see their metaphorical children as equals and alternated between neglecting them and oppressing/exploiting them. Thus, those authorities needed to be overthrown in order for their children to independently develop to their full potential. That's the narrative of the American Revolution, but without the complications of slavery or mortals having any responsibility for what happened to the Titans/metaphorical indigenous populations of Exandria.

I feel like using any human conflict as your understanding of the vanguard's attack on the gods is, as an earlier post implied, a broken metaphor. There's no way to make Aeor (a story hinging entirely on how gods can't be killed in the same way as mortals can), the entire story of the Vanguard (ditto with an added element of "so we will call upon a different god"), and Bells Hells' grievances which aren't even as broadly applicable to all or most mortals as "taxation without representation" was to American colonials all fit here.

I really think trying to treat a story where the gods are clearly agreed by EVERYONE to be fundamentally different entities than mortals as anything but mythological level fantasy is going to have really unfortunate implications.

[infatuatedlilbitch]

YOU'VE PROBABLY HEARD THIS: THOSE WHO DO NOT LEARN THEIR HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT.

BUT HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT IT THIS WAY? DON'T LET THEM LIE TO YOU.

PROTESTING ISN'T JUST YOUR RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN - IT'S YOUR LEGACY. IT'S HOW EVERY SINGLE RIGHT YOU HAVE WAS WON.

THIS IS LONG BUT YOU SHOULD READ IT.

Ya'll are out here talking about throwing Teslas in the harbor without understanding why we threw all that fucking tea in there to begin with. NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. Does that mean nothing to you anymore?

LOOK AT THE RECEIPTS:

Boston Tea Party (1773) - Sparked the American Revolution and established right to resist unjust government

Women's Suffrage Parade (1913) - Won women's right to vote in 1920

The March on Washington (1963) - Led to Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965

Stonewall Riots (1969) - Started by Marsha P. Johnson, a Black trans woman throwing the first brick at police - launched LGBTQ+ rights movement, led to first Pride marches and gay rights organizations

The Occupation of Alcatraz (1969-71) - 89 people forced recognition of Native treaty rights and sparked Native American civil rights movement

March For Our Lives (2018) - Led to gun safety legislation in multiple states, changed national conversation on gun violence

PROTEST ISN'T JUST MARCHING IN STREETS:

It's art that makes people uncomfortable - Nina Simone's "Mississippi Goddam" did more for civil rights than any polite request

It's music that wakes people up - When Billie Holiday sang "Strange Fruit," she made America face its lynching horror

It's visual art that exposes truth - ACT UP's protest art forced America to see the AIDS crisis

It's writing that changes minds - Underground newspapers, pamphlets, manifestos

It's performance that disrupts - Guerrilla theater, die-ins, creative actions

It's documentation - Recording injustice, preserving movement history

It's education - Teaching real history, sharing tactics

It's cultural resistance - Creating alternative spaces and institutions

It's economic pressure - Boycotts, strikes, union organizing

It's legislative action - Calling reps, attending meetings

It's digital organizing - Coordinating actions online

It's DECOLONIZING YOUR BODY AND MIND

It's healing trauma so you can fight better

It's building community when they want you isolated

It's REFUSING TO SHUT UP when they want you quiet

HEY STRAIGHT CIS WHITE PEOPLE (ESPECIALLY MEN) - WAKE THE FUCK UP: You think your rights as a worker aren't next? Think about it - they're coming for minorities first but you're just as disposable to them. You think missing a day of work to protest is scary and inconvenient? Wait till they reinstate the draft.

Even fucking THOMAS JEFFERSON - that slave-owning racist piece of shit - understood that the government always needs watching. 'I prefer dangerous liberty to quiet servitude.' When even the architect of oppression knows people need the power to resist, what's your fucking excuse? He knew EXACTLY how this shit works:

Look at these capitalist cycles:

Create a crisis - Housing crash of 2008, current rent crisis, medical debt crisis

Make people desperate - Minimum wage stuck at $7.25, union-busting, student loan trap

Take away rights - Gutting voting rights, ending Roe, attacking trans healthcare

Blame minorities - "They're taking your jobs" "They're grooming kids" "They're ruining the country"

Rinse and fucking repeat until we're all too exhausted to resist

You think being gay not being classified as a mental illness just HAPPENED? That took until 1973. You think gay marriage being legal just HAPPENED? That was 2015 - a fucking DECADE ago. Rights aren't given - they're FOUGHT FOR. Every. Single. Day.

And look what's happening now:

They overturned Roe v Wade in 2022 after 50 years of precedent

They've banned trans healthcare in over 20 states

They've banned LGBTQ education in Florida, Texas, and beyond

They're trying to overturn birthright citizenship

Workers' rights are next

And you're worried about missing ONE shift?

KNOW YOUR FUCKING RIGHTS: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights#:~:text=The%20First%20Amendment%20protects%20your,the%20exercise%20of%20speech%20rights.

THERE ARE MORE OF US THAN THEM:

89 people held Alcatraz

A few drag queens started Pride

Small groups of workers won your weekend

Teenagers who survived a shooting showed more courage than all you "can't miss work" cowards

IT DOESN'T TAKE EVERYONE - IT JUST TAKES ENOUGH

You think America stayed a democracy this long because everyone showed up to their 9-5 like good little worker bees? FUCK NO. It's because people fought back. They organized. They resisted.

WAKE UP. GET ORGANIZED. QUIT PARTICIPATING IN YOUR OWN DISENFRANCHISEMENT.

Your silence is compliance. If you think things are fine, you’re one of the people who need to get out there for those who are fighting for their basic human rights.

THEY WANT YOU:

Afraid of missing work

Isolated from your community

Living paycheck to paycheck

Too exhausted to fight back

Thinking protest never works

Blaming women and minorities instead of billionaires

PROVE THEM WRONG. EVERYONE HAS A PART IN THE RESISTANCE.

[thetrashthatsmilesback]

Watcher, Capitalism, and the Petite (Petty) Bourgeois

So the whole Watcher controversy has revealed an interesting misunderstanding of what constitutes "the rich" or capitalist beliefs. The major theme that arose during the controversy was the sense that Shane in particular had gone against his previously stated leftist beliefs - that he had, for all these years, taken up a humorous aesthetic of anti-capitalism without actually believing in what he was saying. I believe that this is due to a breakdown in definitions as they become spread to the general public. Dissemination of information is a good thing, and I would never argue against it, but one problem which arises from concepts spreading to large groups without context is that often the actual meanings break down until they are vastly different from their original, academic denotation. This is, I believe, what happened with the phrase “eat the rich” and its current colloquial usage.

I want to preface this with the fact that nothing I am about to say applies exclusively to Watcher, or that the Watcher staff have done anything wrong or misrepresented themselves. I also don’t think that the Watcher fanbase is wrong at all – the situation just happened to spawn arguments both in defense of and critique of the Watcher team which indicated, in my opinion, that an understanding of “the rich” in a capitalist society is not well understood. Disclaimers out of the way, let’s get into this.

During the controversy, two major sides arose – those who had begun to see the Watcher crew (in particular Steven, Ryan, and Shane) as “the rich” or ruling class in a capitalist setting, and those who argued against this by arguing that as Watcher is a small business, and not the upper 1%, they are not included in the definition of “the rich” expressed by leftists. I want to focus in on the counter-argument that Watcher being a small business just trying to survive means that they are not considered “the rich.”

In Marxist theory, there is a small group called the “petite” or “petty bourgeoisie.” This group is defined as those who both own and contribute to the means of production – aka, small business owners. Marx himself wrote little about the petite bourgeoisie, predominantly referencing them in passing in his essays The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850 and very briefly in The Communist Manifesto. He does happen to criticize this group in the little writing he did on it, “Marx derides what he sees as the petit-bourgeois self-delusion that, because it combines both employment and ownership of the means of production, it somehow represents the solution to the class struggle. This class was progressive in a limited sense, as witnessed by its claims at various times for co-operatives, credit institutions, and progressive taxation, as a consequence of felt oppression at the hands of the bourgeoisie. However, these were (in terms of the Marxist view of history) strictly limited demands, just as the ideological representatives of this class have been constrained by their own problems and solutions” (“Petite Bourgeoisie - Oxford Reference”).

Now, it is very important to note that team “Watcher is a small business” aren’t completely wrong in their positioning of Watcher’s attempt to raise more revenue as Not Evil Capitalism. Marx’s belief was that eventually the Petite Bourgeoisie would be pushed into the proletariat class. I also am not positive that Watcher is a classical small business – they very well could be a worker co-op. A worker co-op is a business where the workers have ownership of the company, and significant representation on the board of directors(“What Is A Worker Cooperative? – U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives”). While some criticism of worker co-ops from a communist or socialist view exist, they are generally seen as a more socialist approach to the typical small business model.

I couldn’t find direct confirmation that Watcher is a co-op. One point against them being one is the use of titles such as CEO and Owner, but these designations could simply be for tax and paperwork reasons. Watcher is an objectively small company, they have between 25 and 30 workers, and most people cite them currently having 27 workers, but in the past they have employed interns and I am unsure of if they currently have interns on board so I am going to stick to the range. It would be incredibly easy to have a worker co-op with 25-30 people, you wouldn’t even need voted representatives; everyone could just be on the board and contribute to decisions. I figured the next best approach would be to see what the roles on Watcher’s shows are – if Steven, Shane, and Ryan contribute significantly rather than just showing up and looking pretty on camera, then there is a good chance they might be functioning as a worker co-op more than a traditional business or small business.

To do this, I decided to look at Watcher’s largest show for each co-owner. This means Ghost Files, Mystery Files, Puppet History, and Steven’s food series. These numbers broke down as follows:

Ghost Files: Ryan is listed as a Creator on all Ghost Files videos. Ghost Files Debriefs do not have writers, so that role will not be held against them on those videos. Ryan and Shane were listed as a Host and an Executive Producer on all videos, but neither ever held a Writer, Editor, or Sound Mixing role.

Mystery Files: Ryan and Shane were listed as a Host and an Executive Producer on all videos, but neither ever held a Writer, Editor, or Sound Mixing role.

Puppet History: Shane is listed as a Creator on all Puppet History videos. He is listed as a Host on all videos, an Executive Producer on all videos, Writer on 4 videos, and never held an Editor or Sound Mixing role.

Steven’s Food Series: Steven is listed as a Host and an Executive Producer on all videos, but neither ever held an Editor, or Sound Mixing role. This show does not require a writer so this will not be held against him.

*Do take these numbers with a grain of salt, I wrote this while in class so its possible that I missed something.*

Looking at those numbers, the main three do predominantly just film, but I don’t want to devalue the work that goes into being on camera. They are still generating capital by acting, I simply wanted to clear up confusion I had due to seeing people say they edited every Ghost Files video. From what I can see, they don’t do the editing, but as executive producers they likely have to review every video before it goes out. I also still can’t fully come to a conclusion on if the company can be considered a worker co-op, but I believe it is a standard small business – aka, the petite bourgeoisie.

All of that leads to the final point – the way that people only began to view the three lead Watcher members/founding members as “the rich” after the announcement of the streaming platform shows the way that leftist theory has become divorced from some of its meaning. I saw several people arguing “you guys can’t recognize the rich”/”you guys would attack doctors and lawyers under the guise of eating the rich,” and yes its true that doctors who work in hospitals are proletariat, but if a doctor opens a private practice or a lawyer opens a private firm, does that render them more bourgeoisie or more proletariat? At what point do the petite bourgeoisie become a part of those who we disavow? I don’t actually have answers to these questions, and I’m sure people much smarter than me or better versed in economics have written on this (one source I found that seemed good while I was skimming it despite its age is this one https://www.jstor.org/stable/2083291?seq=3 ). I didn’t make this point to argue one point over the other on whether Watcher counts as “the rich,” but more to focus on the way that term gets used. The argument could be made that we could have started questioning Shane’s anti-capitalist beliefs the moment he helped start a company, but we didn’t. We only started to criticize him on the basis of hypocrisy after the announcement and its out of touch comments. This raises so many questions about how we use the term “the rich” now – does it refer to anyone we dislike who is financially stable? Has the term become completely divorced from its original meaning? Or were we being hypocrites all along? Has Watcher Entertainment always been incongruent with Shane’s implied political beliefs? Is there a certain point at which the petite bourgeoisie become a part of the financial aristocracy? Or is that term only relegated to the industrial bourgeoisie, is it reserved exclusively for those in financial positions that no artisan could ever hope to reach?

Is it possible that both arguments are correct regarding the Watcher boys, and all other members of small business ownership and management positions? That they are both “the rich” but not a part of the proper bourgeoisie?

I don’t know. I find it fascinating though.

[on-partiality]

Today's the 250th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party so here's some information on the Sons of Liberty, the lead up to the Boston Tea Party and what happened after!

apologies for any inaccuracies, I wrote this pretty late

The conflict between the American colonies and New England started after the French and Indian war ended with the Treaty of Paris on the 10th of February, 1763. The French and Indian war started because of conflicting territory claims in North America between the British and the French. Originally it was fought between only the British Americans and the French colonists with Native Americans helping on either side (especially with the French because they were severely outnumbered). However two years into the war the United Kingdom - except for ireland - decided enough was enough and officially declared a war with France which started a large world-wide conflict over many territories. In the end, the war was won by the Colonial Americans and British, the French lost all of their North American territory and what used to be their territory was split somewhat evenly between the Spanish and the British but that was only sorted out after the British fought in a war against the Spanish called the Anglo-Spanish war (the first one). So a victory, that sounds good for America right? Wrong. Wars are expensive, maintaining an army is expensive and the British were dealing with many other wars in all different territories at around the same time so England had a national debt of nearly 177.645 MILLION modern day USD.

England had a HUGE poverty crisis. They had to come up with a way to get money and quickly so on April the 5th 1764 the British parliament amended their pre-existing Sugar and Molasses Act. A tax on the importation of wine, molasses, indigo and sugar from places that weren't part of Britain, mainly the non-British Caribbean. This act also banned all foreign rum. Then on March the 22nd, 1765 the British parliament passed the stamp act. A tax on playing cards, newspapers, legal documents. The main problem with this tax was that it couldn't be paid in the paper money used in the 13 colonies, it had to be paid off using the British Sterling which wasn't easy to obtain in America. That and paper was possibly the most important resource in the 18th century. Later in October 1765, a Stamp Act Congress was held in Philadelphia to discuss all of the problems with this act. Then on March the 24th the British passed the Quartering Act which stated that if British troops want to stay at your house you have to provide them with food and let them inside of your house. This was a clear invasion of two very basic rights of Englishmen, private property and personal security.

The Americans fought back against these acts like with Boston's non-importation agreement where merchants from Boston agreed not to buy or sell anything from/to Britain and the Golden Hill riot in New York and the Gaspée Affair which was when a group burned a British ship while the soldiers were off looking for smugglers in Rhode Island, the group was then accused of treason. The most notable of all of these protests though was the later Boston Tea Party.

The Boston Tea Party happened because of a group called the Sons of Liberty which was created in 1765 out of a strong hatred of the Stamp Act. They believed that it was ridiculous that the British could tax the Americans when the Americans didn't even have a representative in parliament, their phrase was 'no taxation without representation'. There's a lot of dispute over what kind of organisation the Sons of Liberty actually was. I might go into all of the theories in another post but for the moment if you want to come up with your own idea on it I suggest looking into them yourself, for this post I'm just going to call them a group or organisation because it's pretty ambiguous. Anyway, the Sons of Liberty usually met at liberty poles/liberty trees which are believed to have been marked as meeting places using the Sons of Liberty's flag. The group was founded in Boston in the Massachusetts Bay colony and it's leader was Samuel 'Sam' Adams.

The Sons of Liberty's first big really move was to burn an effigy of the local Stamp Act enforcer, Andrew Oliver and then burn his office and destroyed the house of his associate. The group's protests were more often then not violent but they got their points across. It didn't help when the Boston Massacre happened in 1770, which only further outraged the colonists, expect the Boston Massacre to get it's own in depth post one day because the court trial was super interesting. Then on the 10th of May, 1773 the British made another act called the Tea Act which made it so that the colonists had to pay more for tea that wasn't legally imported. The Tea Act was meant to help the British East India Tea Company because they were making most of Britains money and they'd gone into a huge debt which caused 20-30 English banks to collapse and started the British Credit Crisis of 1772-1773. The problem was that because the imported tea from Britain was really cheap people didn't buy from local businesses which caused farmers to go completely bankrupt. The Tea Act was the final straw for the Sons of Liberty and many Americans.

Britain sent a shipment of East India Company Tea to America and all of the American colonies that the tea was going to be sent to convinced the people on the ship to resign except for Massachusetts. So the Dartmouth, a ship full of tea arrived in Boston Harbour, Samuel Adams called for a meeting at Fanueuil Hall and thousands of people turned up so they had to move meeting places. During the meeting the Colonists discussed possible resolutions, they decided to have a medium group of men watching the tea to make sure it wouldn't be unloaded and pleaded for the ship to leave. The governor of Massachusetts refused to let the ship leave and two more ships arrived. On December the 16th, 1773, Samuel Adams met with the people of Massachusetts again to tell them about the governors refusal, the meeting caused total fury amongst all of the colonists.

In protest of the Tea Act and all of the other taxes the British had put on the Americans, the people ran out of the meeting room, some of them put on Native American costumes both in an attempt to conceal their identity because what they were about to do was illegal and as a symbolic choice to show that America's their country, not Britain. They then ran onto the 3 tea ships while Samuel Adams was telling everyone to calm down and stay for the end of the meeting. And spent 3 hours hurling all of the chests of tea into the water.

The British did not respond well, they believed that the Colonists needed to be punished so they passed the infamous Intolerable Acts which consisted of the Boston Port Act, meant to force Boston to pay for the tea by closing the port until the people of Boston paid for the tea which the Colonists argued was unfair because it was punishing the whole population for something only about half of them did, the Massachusetts Government Act which changed the way that the government of Massachusetts worked by giving people appointed by the British Parliament/King far more power, this made it easier for the British government to manage the Massachusetts Bay colony from England, the Administration of Justice Acts which state that any accused Royal officials can get a trial in England if they don't believe that they would be judged fairly in Massachusetts - which seems like a strange thing to add given how the Boston Massacre trial with John Adams went? - And I've already talked about the last intolerable act, the Quartering act which states that you have to let British troops stay in your house if they want to and you have to give them food.

[loboboss57]

Political Apathy Will Cost Us

State of Affairs

By: Diego Lopez

Apathy. What a word. Merriam-Webster defines it as a lack of feeling, emotion, interest, or concern. It’s a word we use often to describe political disengagement, but today it feels appropriate to describe what’s happening right here in Cibola County.

On December 3, in a meeting that lasted just 15 minutes, the Cibola County Board of Commissioners made a decision that flies in the face of one of the most fundamental principles of American government: Representation.

The commission voted unanimously to nominate State Representative Harry Garcia to fill the House District 6 seat vacated by Eliseo Lee Alcon for health reasons.

At first glance, Garcia seems like an excellent choice. He’s experienced, respected, well-liked, and he truly cares for Cibola County. But there’s a glaring problem: Harry Garcia doesn’t live in District 6.

This isn’t just a geographical technicality; it’s a constitutional requirement. Article 4, Section 3 of the New Mexico State Constitution clearly states:

“If any senator or representative permanently removes his residence from or maintains no residence in the district from which he was elected, then he shall be deemed to have resigned.”

House District 6 covers the western half of Cibola County, including Thoreau, Bluewater, Pinehill, Ramah-Navajo, and the Village of Milan. Harry Garcia resides in District 69, which covers an entirely different area. The commission’s decision to nominate someone who is ineligible to serve under the constitution is baffling and deeply troubling.

Let me be clear: this isn’t just about geography. This is about Representation.

The people of District 6 deserve to have their voices heard in Santa Fe. They pay taxes. They contribute to the community. But this decision effectively strips them of their Representation in Santa Fe, violating the very principle of “no taxation without representation” that this nation was founded upon.

Was this decision intentional? I’d like to believe it wasn’t. Maybe it was a rushed move made with the excitement of giving Garcia another shot at legislative service. But intentional or not, it was wrong. And if it stands, the consequences will be severe.

By nominating an ineligible candidate, the Cibola County Commission has handed McKinley County the opportunity to select a nominee who does meet the constitutional requirements. If McKinley’s choice is someone who resides in District 6, that person will automatically become the only qualified candidate for the governor’s consideration. In one fell swoop, Cibola could lose a legislative seat it has held for nearly two decades.

This is more than a political blunder. It’s a civic failure—a failure to understand and uphold the basic principles of our government. It’s a reminder that we need to do better, not just elected officials but as a community. Civics education isn’t just for kids in classrooms. It’s for everyone, especially those entrusted with making decisions that affect us all.

Cibola County has made incredible progress in recent years. But this decision threatens to undermine that progress and silence the voices of the people in District 6. I hope there’s still a chance to reverse it, to correct this mistake before it costs us something we can’t afford to lose.

Politics aren’t easy, and they certainly aren’t pretty. But they matter. Representation matters. And in this case, the stakes couldn’t be higher.

[grits-galraisedinthesouth]

What Happened on December 16th, 1773?

One of the most important dates in the history of the United States of America. On this night, the Sons of Liberty dumped more than 300 crates of East India Company tea into Boston Harbor. To many who were still loyal to the crown, this was an act of sedition and treason by “ill designing men”. But to those whose loyalty to King George III—and his taxes—had faltered; this was a galvanizing event. Bostonians from all statuses and walks of life came together, as equal citizens, to make a peaceful protest against tyranny and taxation without representation. It was their patriotism that sparked the American Revolution.

For years, the colonies had been taxed without receiving equal representation in Parliament. The first direct tax on the colonies was the Stamp Act of 1765, taxing all paper goods. This would be followed by the Townsend Acts which taxed glass, lead, paint, and tea. This taxation without representation led to protests, riots, and further unrest in an already tense city.

The Boston Tea Party was the culmination of a series of meetings beginning on November 29, 1773—two days after the first of the three ships bearing East India Company tea arrived in Boston Harbor. The arrival of the Dartmouth, with her 114 chests of tea on board, sent Boston into a frenzy. The Sons of Liberty demanded the tea be sent back to England, but those requests were refused by Royal Governor Thomas Hutchinson.

A few days later, the ship Eleanor and brig Beaver arrived with more cargoes of tea. With the deadline to unload the tea looming, Bostonians met at Old South Meeting House on Thursday December 16, 1773 to decide the fate of the cursed East India Company Tea. It was still the hope of those assembled that a peaceable agreement could be reached. Francis Rotch, owner of the Beaver and Dartmouth, was sent to Milton to obtain a pass from the Royal Governor so that his ships could be sent safely past the guns of Castle Island, and back to England with the tea still onboard. When Rotch returned and gave word that this request was denied, a mighty cry echoed through the historic hall. Samuel Adams stood up and said “This meeting can do nothing more to save the country.” This was a secret signal to the Sons of Liberty. They sprang into action as hundreds of men, loosely disguised as Mohawks, marched to Griffin’s Wharf and into history.

Copyright © 2023 December16.org

[butchdazai]

unironically i think permanent residents everywhere should be able to vote. what happened to "no taxation without representation" or whatever they said in the us revolution

[nodynasty4us]

Politics: Dictatorship...

(From reader comments at electoral-vote.com.)

A.B. in Wendell, NC, writes: Your item about the poll stating one in five Millennials and Gen-Z folks think "under certain circumstances" a dictatorship would be good really shocked me. And I have a history lesson for those who believe this: We once DID have a dictatorship right here in America, under King George III.

We only fought an 8-year-long war to free ourselves of that dictatorship. And compared to modern-day dictators... good old Georgie was not so bad, actually. He just did a lot of things that were unfair to the Colonists, mostly economic (taxation without representation). And, I might remind those who would support a dictatorship you'd still have taxation... just no voice, no vote. A vote that countless men and women DIED in order to give to you.

"Under certain circumstances" means what, exactly? That they do what you want? Dictators usually don't do that. They do what THEY want... and it usually isn't something you're going to like very much. Also, dictators eventually turn on those who once supported them, once all the "enemies" are gone. So be careful what you wish for!

Our system may not be perfect, but it is the best we got so far, and it beats the hell out of a dictatorship under any circumstances. Yes, there is a lot of gridlock. This is intentional... it is designed to make sure that truly onerous things do not happen, and that change occurs slowly. Yes, it is frustrating and maddening, especially when one party uses every parliamentary trick in the book to throw sand in the gears. I get it.

Do we need to address some of this? Yes, but to chuck the whole thing for a dictatorship IS NOT THE ANSWER!

Of course, if you'd like to go back to the days when LGBTQ people like me lived in fear in closets, unable to be our true selves,and minorities were treated unfairly and this treatment was supported by law... then, by all means, create your dictatorship. But leave me out. Let me leave peacefully first. Set me up with what I basically have here somewhere else, and I will go. Because I have no desire to live in the country YOU would create.

No, America isn't perfect. Far from it. But I will take what we got here right now over anything you would propose.

[saritasoyyo]

People of the Internet it's time to flip the script:

NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION!!!

Proposals:

You must pay a minimum tax rate of 35% of all forms of income, including capital gains, in order to run for or hold any electable or politically appointed federal position. All assets must be taxed at the minimum level of value under both federal and state of residence laws. Evidence of tax avoidance of any kind is disqualifying and must be arbitrated by--x office for federal appointees and state attorney's general for federal elected officials. Complete tax documentation must be made public for the period of 10 years prior to running for office or from proposed appointment. Tax documentation will remain public for 10 years after close of the elected or appointed term.

All persons in elected or appointed position within the federal government must publicly disclose all assets held in the 10 years prior to standing for election or appointment and throughout the time they hold the elected or appointed position. Once elected or appointed all assets must be publicly disclosed for 10 years after the end of their elected or appointed position.

No elected or appointed official may receive gifts in cash or in kind totaling a value of $5000 or above per year. All gifts achieving a total valuing of $5000 or above given to any first or second degree family member, including step children and in-laws, must be disclosed privately to your branch's office of (whatever we're making the office of stopping public corruption) .

Basically making the rules governing anti-corruption for regular federal employees way tougher and way more public for anyone elected or appointed. As it should be, it's a higher bar with more opportunities for corrupt behaviors. Quid Pro Quo is no longer the only standard. And this would include the Supreme Court--they don't get to make their own rules about financial disclosures & gifts anymore. It's in the Constitution Also I'm deliberately not stopping anyone from becoming a lobbyist. I actually think we want to let people do that. I just think we want to make them make everything financial that happens as a lobbyist public. If being rich is so beneficial, superior, & morally neutral, then nobody should have a problem disclosing their salaries, benefit structures, bonuses, annuities, stocks & investments, and gifts. Right? That's what I thought.

Y'all I want a New Constitutional Convention and I've got list of our new amendments I want:

ERA

Presidential Election by National Popular Vote/Kill the Electoral College

Modernizing Public Service Corruption Prevention/Public Disclosure of Assets & Taxes for Federal Offices & Officials

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (defined as any human being under age 18): the right to a name and nationality; freedom of speech and thought; access to healthcare and education; and freedom from exploitation, torture, and abuse.

[thorgoodlaw1]

Understanding Criminal Tax Defense: How the Right Legal Help Can Protect You

Why Tax Issues Can Turn Criminal

Most people think tax problems only involve money, like unpaid taxes or mistakes on returns. But sometimes, the government believes a person or business broke the law on purpose. When that happens, you need more than just an accountant — you need a New York tax defense attorney who understands the legal system and how to protect you.

From filing false returns to underreporting income, tax offenses can carry serious consequences. If you’ve received a notice from the IRS or New York Department of Taxation and Finance, now is the time to act.

How Legal Representation Helps in Criminal Tax Cases

Whether you’re facing an audit or have been contacted by investigators, working with a skilled criminal tax attorney NYC is a smart move. These professionals know how to analyze records, deal with tax agents, and respond to accusations. A strong legal strategy can lead to reduced charges — or even having the case dropped.

Sometimes, tax issues also involve commercial matters like rental agreements. If your business has received property-related incentives, understanding lease incentive tax treatment is important. Misreporting these benefits can lead to costly errors or audits.

Handling New York State Sales Tax Investigations

Business owners in New York face complex tax regulations, especially when it comes to sales tax. If you’re under audit, consulting a criminal tax attorney New York who understands both business law and tax codes is vital.

In many cases, people also need help from a New York State sales tax attorney who can assist with audit defense, correcting errors, and communicating with tax agencies. Legal professionals in this area ensure that you respond properly and avoid escalating the situation.

Sometimes, businesses receive notices from state tax agents, and that’s when a sales tax attorney New York business owners can count on becomes crucial. Ignoring these issues can result in fines — or worse, criminal prosecution.

Fortunately, New York Sales Tax attorneys are trained to spot red flags and handle the problem before it turns into a major legal issue. If the problem has already reached that level, hiring one of the many experienced New York sales tax lawyers may protect your business from further harm.

What If the IRS Is Involved?

If the Internal Revenue Service is investigating you, you’ll want an IRS lawyer NYC representing your side. These attorneys know how the IRS operates and can help you avoid mistakes that lead to criminal charges.

Should your case involve the state’s jurisdiction, a New York sales tax lawyer can work to resolve your situation at the state level while coordinating your defense with federal authorities.

Choosing the Right Legal Help

Finding the best representation matters. If you’re looking for experienced professionals, consider one of the top tax attorneys New York offers. They’ve handled serious investigations and helped clients reach favorable outcomes.

You should also consider hiring the best tax attorney NYC if you are dealing with both civil penalties and criminal exposure. The most experienced lawyers often have the insight and negotiation skills to resolve matters quietly and efficiently.

When the stakes are high, you may specifically need the best criminal tax attorney available. These attorneys understand the risks you face — including jail time and financial ruin — and will fight to protect your future.

In all these cases, having a strong criminal tax defense can reduce or eliminate penalties. Your lawyer can evaluate records, question accusations, and push for alternatives like settlements or deferred prosecution agreements.

The more quickly you get a criminal tax lawyer involved, the more options you have for resolving the matter without going to trial.

Federal Charges Require Specialized Help

When the government investigates crimes like tax fraud, false statements, or conspiracy, you’ll need a federal tax crime defense attorney. These cases are handled by U.S. attorneys and IRS special agents and may involve grand juries or federal courts.

Your defense attorney can guide you through interviews, protect your rights, and help control how your case unfolds.

Stopping Wage Garnishment Before It Hurts

If you’ve already received notice that the IRS or state will garnish your wages, don’t panic. A wage garnishment defense attorney near me can help stop or reduce the garnishment. They may negotiate a payment plan, challenge the amount owed, or seek hardship relief to give you breathing room.

Acting quickly can protect your income and prevent more aggressive collection actions like bank levies or property seizures.

Final Thoughts

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1: When should I contact a criminal tax attorney? You should contact a criminal tax attorney New York as soon as you receive a letter from the IRS or state tax agency, especially if it mentions audits, investigations, or possible fraud. Early legal guidance can prevent the situation from escalating.

Q2: Can a tax mistake really become a criminal issue? Yes. If tax authorities believe a mistake was intentional — like underreporting income or claiming false deductions — you may face criminal charges. A strong criminal tax defense is essential in such cases.

Q3: What’s the difference between a sales tax attorney and a criminal tax attorney? A sales tax attorney New York typically handles audits, collections, and compliance for businesses. A criminal tax lawyer New York, however, defends individuals or companies accused of tax crimes such as evasion or fraud.

Q4: What is lease incentive tax treatment, and why is it important? Lease incentive tax treatment involves how financial incentives provided in lease agreements are reported. Incorrect reporting can trigger audits or criminal investigations.

[the-outer-topic]

A Studio in ComStar - The Phantom of Atreus – Scene 5-5

Reveal and Reshuffle

(Starkov raises his baton and points with it like a marshal of Napoleon signaling to his troops.)

Starkov: "Over there, the guy in Oriente white overalls. NO! Not the lieutenant colonel, fools! Leave the old man in peace. I mean the young blonde guy with the moustache, back rows. Give up, comrade," he added dryly. "Game is over. Hands on your head! Walk to the aisle, now."

(The man complies sullenly as two ComGuards arrive to seize and frisk him for weapons.)

Starkov: "Don’t bother, soldiers. You will find nothing — you have to look in other places. Now, it has been a while since I was in the business, but as I recall, the standard loadout was... check his collar. You will find a garrote wire tucked under the lapels. Also, there’s a blade hidden inside the belt buckle."

(The guards comply. They turn, surprised, toward Starkov as they find the weapons exactly as he described. A gasp and a wave of murmurs spread through the crowd.)

Starkov: "And there’s something else... Studio, replay the scene when I entered. I saw this guy pouncing like a panther."

(He gestures toward the screens.)

Starkov: "There it is — he had something in his hand. Found nothing? Look under the seats. He must have dropped it. It’s something like a pen for allergies... be careful. It’s a neurotoxin."

(People nervously check under their seats. ComGuards with flashlights comb the seat rows. The guards complete their search, handcuff the assassin, and lead him away.)

(Starkov calls out after them with biting sarcasm.)

Starkov: "Hey, guards! Before you call SAFE headquarters on this man, can you give him a tour of the stairs to the basement and introduce him to a couple of doors? I'd appreciate it. Thanks."

(Scattered, uneasy laughter.)

Starkov: "Now, where were we?"

(The people on stage stare at Starkov, aghast.)

Consul (fuming, stunned): "An assassin! In legation territory! This has gone too far!"

(He points furiously at Lefarge.)

Consul: "You — you... just wait till Precentor Atreus returns! Wait till we get in touch with the First Circuit! The League government will answer for this... this outrage!"

Starkov (mildly): "Your Excellency, if you permit, may I have the floor?"

Consul: "Well, Starkov, since it seems you are the only one around here who knows what he’s doing — you have my permission."

Lefarge (imperious): "Not so fast! Enough talking! Though you got off the hook on a technicality, we have a valid warrant. We can arrest you on any other pretext!"

Starkov (with a long, silent stare): "I was gone for just ten years... and a day," he added wryly, "and look what’s happened to the League in that little time: the law has become a pretext. Sad."

(A low murmur from the audience.)

Starkov: "What are you going to do? You have failed to charge me with rebellion — what are you coming up with next, charge me with tax evasion?"

(Laughter.)

Starkov (mock solemnity): "Nothing permanent but death and taxes, indeed! The motto of the League Parliament is ‘No taxation without representation,’ but sometimes it feels more like ‘no execution without taxation.’ You can’t charge me with tax fraud because dead men have no income, no assets — though I imagine League tax collectors are capable of exhuming corpses to pull out the golden teeth!"

Alvarez (dryly): "Viktor, what did I tell you about giving them ideas?"

(Laughter spreads wider.)

Lefarge (talking aside with a lawyer): "I can’t arrest you on past charges, but my warrant allows me to arrest you on any other charge — or in flagrante delicto. We just have to come up with a valid reason."

Starkov (smiling thinly): "So let’s get out of this impasse, Your Lordship. We can't stand here all night while your attorney pores over the law books coming up with accusations, and the ComStar Chancellor is losing patience with you, Ambassador. To recapitulate, the situation is as follows: You can’t arrest me. ComStar cannot extradite me — but they would agree to, if given a valid reason, and they'd only be too glad to rid themselves of my embarrassing presence. Meanwhile, ComStar can’t expel you and your henchmen until you are done with the purpose of your embassy. A stalemate."

Lefarge (grudgingly): "Right. So what do you propose? Are you going to surrender?"

Starkov (mock innocent): "No, Your Lordship. I am not tired of living yet." (Beat.) "Wait. I am dead. I meant I am not ready to go into the light yet."

(Laughter.)

Attorney (cautious): "I see where you are getting at. If you want to plea bargain, we can offer to commute the death sentence for a prison sentence. The Marik government will show you leniency if you come with us and save the League trouble. SAFE would also like a word with you regarding certain... matters pertaining to the late Duke of Procyon’s treasure."

Alvarez (neutral): "That can be negotiated. Is that what you desire, Mister Starkov?"

Starkov (shaking his head): "Not the compromise I had in mind. And I’m not in the mood to argue with lawyers — even with the redoubtable Counselor Alvarez at my side. Diplomats and lawyers have spoken. Now, it’s the turn of soldiers. I propose, milord, that in this impromptu extradition hearing — the studio being the court and the Consul presiding for ComStar as judge and arbiter — you, milord, without any help or counsel of your attorney, and without communication with your legal team, make an accusation charge, and I, representing myself, will answer it. Let ComStar decide."

Alvarez (urgently): "Mister Starkov — Viktor — don’t do that! As your counselor, I am obliged to inform you of the risks you run. I cannot be responsible for this."

Starkov (with quiet conviction): "Your help and counsel are appreciated, as well as the benevolence shown by the Consul — but I must fight my own battles. What do you say, Earl? You are a member of Parliament and versed in laws — surely you can beat an uneducated simple soldier like me at this game?"

Lefarge (biting): "Your terms are acceptable. I will get you to justice."

Attorney (protesting): "Milord, are you sure about this?"

Lefarge (snapping): "Yes, damn it! Stand aside, old man! I can think of half a dozen charges to arrest this scoundrel."

Starkov (mildly): "One, and only one, will do if it’s good enough for ComStar."

Attorney (urgent): "Milord, no! He’s baiting you! He has good legal advice. He must have been briefed by Alvarez and foreseen this. He’s anticipating what you are going to say!"

Lefarge (hesitating, unsure): "You are right..."

ComStar Consul (impatient): "Ambassador, you don’t have all night to think. If your embassy has no other purpose, the audience is over, and you must leave now. Make your case — or leave. And Starkov is right: you are abusing your privilege as an ambassador and testing my patience as Consul."

Lefarge (gritting teeth): "You are crafty, Starkov. But I am not betting everything on a single card. I will present five charges."

Starkov (mock dismay): "Well, haggling is beneath your dignity... but let's get this over with. I concede — to the best of breaking three lances, like in a medieval tournament?"

Attorney (grimly): "Milord, I have a bad feeling about this."

Alvarez (exasperated): "Viktor! Are you out of your mind!?"

(Both Lefarge and Viktor, at the same time, turning and shouting.)

Lefarge and Starkov (together): "SHUT UP!"

(The two lawyers throw up their arms in disgust and retreat, shaking their heads.)

(The ComStar Consul confers quietly with acolytes and adepts.)