Note: This post is commentary and episode recap—not legal or tax advice. If you’re making decisions about filing or payment obligations, consult a qualified professional and review primary sources yourself.
With that said, here’s what stood out—and why it matters beyond taxes.
Tax season has a way of turning grown adults into anxious children.
The countdown to April. The paperwork. The dread. The feeling that if you mess this up, something bad will happen.
In Episode 87 of Dangerous Dames, Dr. Lee Merritt and I sat down with Peymon Mottahedeh of Freedom Law School to examine the narrative layer beneath the tax system—especially the phrase you’ve heard a thousand times:
“Voluntary compliance.”
To be clear: this episode isn’t a tidy “tax protest” rant. It’s a wide-angle conversation about law, history, propaganda, and the mechanics of consent in a system that feels anything but optional. Peymon’s core claim is simple—and explosive: that fear and misinformation keep people “consenting” to a system they don’t actually understand. He ties that to a broader mood shift he calls a “tax strike,” framed in one line that’s hard to un-hear:
“Like it’s 2026, like it’s 1776.”
Whether you agree with him or not, the conversation opens a deeper issue: how systems maintain control through paperwork, shame, and ritual—even when the average person can’t explain the legal basis for what they’re doing.
1) The “tax strike” idea: voting with your wallet
Early in the episode, Peymon describes a growing cohort of people who are simply done—done with the confusion, done with the intimidation, done with the sense that their labor is being siphoned into institutions they don’t consent to fund.
His argument isn’t just economic; it’s psychological: people comply because they’re afraid. And once fear is in the driver’s seat, it’s easy to steer people anywhere.
We also talk about how frustration with transparency, enforcement double standards, and “uniparty” dynamics feeds the desire for non-cooperation. For many, the issue is less left vs. right and more:
Why am I funding institutions that openly ignore their own rules?
In the episode, he also sketches a multi-step process he says helps people move from fear to clarity about their obligations—emphasizing education over reflexive obedience.
2) “Voluntary compliance” as a story—not a feeling
In “official” language, voluntary compliance is often used to describe a self-reporting/self-assessment system—citizens do the calculating, the categorizing, the documenting, and the reporting. But in lived experience, it often doesn’t feel voluntary. It can feel like a forced ritual performed under social and institutional pressure.
That gap—between terminology and emotional reality—is where this episode lives.
Peymon argues the power isn’t just in enforcement. It’s in the story people tell themselves about enforcement: what they believe can happen if they step out of line, and how certain they are that the machine will notice.
3) The claim: filing as confession
Peymon repeatedly argues that filing functions as a kind of self-incrimination—signing statements “under penalties of perjury,” placing the burden on yourself, and making yourself an easier target than someone who doesn’t voluntarily hand over a narrative.
A recurring theme lands like a hammer:
Systems work best when you do the work for them.
Fill out the forms. Categorize yourself. Choose from their menu of boxes. Provide your own evidence trail.
From there, he makes a bolder point: he argues the system relies more on self-policing than broad enforcement capacity—and that the public’s idea of an omniscient, omnipresent agency is part of what keeps compliance high. You don’t need a perfect machine if people will anxiously over-comply on your behalf.
4) IRS mythology vs. logistics: the all-powerful machine that might not exist
One of the most interesting parts of this conversation is the mismatch between the agency’s reputation and its logistics.
Peymon describes the Internal Revenue Service as a sprawling bureaucracy running on old systems, limited personnel, and backlogs that look nothing like the monster in people’s heads. He cites figures and examples meant to make a single point: the public imagines a seamless enforcement machine; he argues the reality is fragmentation, triage, and intimidation-by-letter.
We even talk about the idea that “AI” is being floated as a psychological threat—an intimidation tactic more than an operational reality.
Whether you buy that or not, it raises a real question:
How much of compliance is driven by actual enforcement… and how much is driven by belief in enforcement?
At what point does the story of an all-seeing agency become more important than what it can practically do?
5) Propaganda starts young: “be a good citizen—pay your taxes”
A moment that stuck with me: I described walking into a children’s exhibit—cartoons, catchy music, kid-friendly messaging—and the first song was essentially: be a good citizen and pay your taxes.
That’s not a policy argument. That’s identity formation.
We also riff on symbolism and aesthetics—how institutions signal authority, how they shape the emotional field around compliance, and why that matters more than most people realize. Architecture, slogans, logos, even children’s media can work together to make certain behaviors feel “normal,” “good,” and unquestionable.
6) So what do we do with a conversation like this?
If you’re a longtime listener, you know the vibe: we’re not here to soothe you. We’re here to question the things you’re told are “just the way it is.”
This episode isn’t a checklist. It’s a provocation:
What does “voluntary compliance” really mean in practice—psychologically and institutionally?
How much of your behavior is driven by fear of punishment versus knowledge of law?
What would it look like to reclaim agency—financially, politically, psychologically—without turning yourself into a casualty?
Where is the line between genuine obligation and manufactured compliance?
Whether you agree with every legal claim or not, there’s value in the meta-lesson: don’t outsource your thinking by default. Read primary materials. Ask better questions. Notice where fear is doing the steering.
Because if the system runs on consent, then the most dangerous question is the one you’re rarely invited to ask:
What if the real “crime” isn’t non-compliance—but blind, perpetual consent?
Watch Episode 87, then sit with the question this episode keeps forcing: where are you obeying a story instead of a law?
Episode chapters (jump points)
0:30 Introduction to The Dangerous Dames
5:01 Weather talk and tax time
6:42 The tax strike movement
9:41 Legal battles and protecting rights
14:41 Non-filers and IRS strategies
17:32 Deception and awareness
20:51 Taxation and propaganda
23:15 Getting started with “freedom”
27:19 Engaging Congress and community
31:16 Misconceptions about tax prosecutions
37:12 AI and IRS efficiency
40:25 Standing up against unlawful practices
50:54 The burden of tax organization
54:54 Closing thoughts
Support the show
If you want to support our work, check the affiliates mentioned in the episode, such as Dr. Merritt’s shop, plus additional sponsors and always use promo code: DANGEROUS
▶Follow & Connect with Dr. Merritt
▶Follow & Connect with Courtenay
(Secure your copy of her book “The Final Betrayal: How Technocracy Destroys America”, a #1 Amazon Best Seller, also available at Technocracy.news )
More at TheDangerousDames.com. Thanks for reading—Stay dangerous.
— Courtenay Turner & Dr. Lee Merritt
Dangerous Dames
Again: this is not legal or tax advice—consult a qualified professional for personal decisions.
