Hmm, seems like you have to the right to free speech, but everyone else has the right to ignore you. If someone came to my work and stood on a soapbox, and everyone was irritated, it's fair to say that we can ask you to leave. If you refuse and force us to call the cops, that's just being a dick.

And harassing some patrol cop like that is just plain shitty. I used to be a cashier as a teenager, and it reminded me of people who would complain about store policies to me. Talk to someone who is actually in charge; when you're at the bottom rung, the last thing you want to deal with is someone who wants you to 'change the system'.

...that, and instead of engaging people and talking about it, it's just ranting loudly to a room. What a jackass.

^its called a protest.
what better way than to make the very people who are part of an oppressive machine feel a bit uncomfortable for being part of that machine?
the justice system has little to do with justice and whole lot to do with money.
and if you WORK/CONSUME/OBEY then you will most likely never see this part of the machine,because you are doing what you are told.
land of the free?
really?
REALLY?
free to do what exactly?
breathe? gee..thanks.
freedom of speech?weeell..not quite.
pursuit of happiness?sure,just sign right here and pay for the "permit".sir..it does not matter that you own the land,you still need a permit,and the only reason why we gave you that was so that we can raise your taxes.sir..SIR..why are you getting mad at me?i only work here...its not my fault.
we are all responsible in one way or another.
but silent consent has to be the most egregious of all forms of apathy.

Ah. I made it to 2:15 before I wanted to kick the guy in the teeth for being an asshole for all the reasons that asynchronice pointed out.

@ enoch:

People need to work to make money to eat and live, you know. Don't take it out on the lowly cashiers. Take it out on the policy makers. Go to a fucking town hall meeting.

So the only reason you should go to jail is if you damage someone's property or if you harm someone?

According to this prick, Chester jerking off to kiddie porn he downloaded shouldn't go to jail. The guy the takes pictures up girl's skirts shouldn't go to jail. The the guy going 130 down the freeway shouldn't go to jail. The guy driving recklessly drunk down the road shouldn't go to jail.

Motherfucker, if you break the law, you go to jail. All those "peaceful" people you're whining about broke one law or another. if you don't want to go to jail for disturbing the peace, don't be a pompous ass like this and disturb the fucking peace.

Fine. Don't pay taxes. But you're not allowed to send your kid to school. You're not allowed to drive down the road or walk on the sidewalk. If your house burns down, you're not allowed to have the fire department come to help. If your kid falls out of a tree and impales himself on a fence post, you're not allowed to call paramedics. If someone is breaking into your house, you're not allowed to call the police.

What the fuck do you think taxes are for, dick?

Being a douche is his right.

Clogging the system is his right.

Protesting his taxes by PAYING them is just plain stupid.

>> ^dgandhi:
Being a douche is his right.
Clogging the system is his right.
Protesting his taxes by PAYING them is just plain stupid.


It's when his douchery interferes with other peoples rights and freedoms that he loses that right. He seems to be in the habit of crossing that line, and acting all indignant when called on it. The kid needs to grow up and realize the freedom to be an ass has a limit when it affects other people.

Upvoting only for the unpalatably laughable amount of jackassery.

I figured out what this reminds me of.

It's like two kindergarten kids that were just told to stop fighting and keep their hands to themselves. He's the kid that immediately after started holding both hands 1 inch from the other kid's face while yelling "I'm not touching you" in his ear.

Fortunately for this kid everyone else has matured enough that they don't right the situation, playground style. Unfortunately for everyone else, this kid obviously has not.

You don't complain about the prices to the sales clerk.. that's just being a customer-asshole. The customer is never right.

don't worry enoch.. i understand what you're saying even if some people can't wrap their head around taking responsibility as citizens to its logical end.

ya know MGR... ive recently concluded approval seeking and bandwagon mentality must drive the heart of this military of volunteers... and while that may be obvious to everyone else here.... i took a more cartesian route to reach my conclusion of my own experiences.... i always thought it was duty and discipline, at the start of my curiousity.

so what do they teach you in there, if not discipline or duty? how to do what you're told, when you're told?

how mature. how difficult.

anyway. just spouting off.

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you just trying to be a dick? As a matter of fact, yes. They do teach you to do what you're told and when you're told. If you don't, you die. Since I'm weird and prefer not being dead, I fucking do what I'm fucking told when the fuck I'm told to do it. Does it apply outside the Marine Corps? Sometimes. But that doesn't mean I do whatever someone tells me, no matter who it is. But when I buy a house, I know that comes with the responsibility of paying taxes, without which nothing like the aforementioned services could be done.
I suppose that you only pay for shit at the store because you feel like it? Or is it because you know that when you pick up a product and intend to take it out of the store, you know you have to pay for it? That it's just what you're supposed to do .


I used to like you. Now? Fuck off and STFU up next time before you embarrass yourself.

@MarineGunrock,
i dont think you quite got what i was attempting to express.
i was stating that this was a protest,you may disagree with his methods,i dont.
Noam chomsky said this most succinctly"the man pulling the lever at the gas chamber in auschwitz may be a fantastic individual,a good husband and father,but he was still responsible for the execution of untold jews.gypsy's,gays and christians".
it is the silent,passive consent that i was talking about,not taxes.
this man was polite,never raised his voice,he was protesting.
dont you think he had a point?
when did non-violent protesting become an offense that merits jail?
how..HOW in the supposed land of the free can we have more people incarcerated than any other country COMBINED?..HOW?

i do,however,totally agree that people need to make a living.it is by choice that i refuse to work for some institutions,but thats MY choice.if i have to dick you over for some cash...well..thats something im not willing to do,and i pay the consequences by not having the most stable income.
i do not judge those who DO choose those jobs,but at the same time..they chose those jobs.and if that means dealing with a protester who may make them feel uncomfortable about it...well..so be it.
because thats the only beef i really see in your argument.
that this man was interrupting "business",but when asked to leave by the police,thats exactly what he did.
made his point..moved on.
you disagree with him...
i do not.
i believe in our forefathers intent for free speech,and redress against the government.sometimes protesting is the only way to get your message out.you ever try to speak at a city hall meeting?
good luck with that.
these are some articles that i employ often:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers
hope that cleared things up MGR.
peace.

HOW in the supposed land of the free can we have more people incarcerated than any other country COMBINED?

You might want to check your facts. I'm just guessing, but China likely has more all by itself. If your just talking per capita, then North Korea would seem to be in a class all it's own.


made his point


Was his point that he can make an ass of himself and disrupt others in the process without being arrested? If that was his point, he seems to have merely demonstrated just how extensive the freedom that he abuses are.

I fail to see any other point he was getting across save the right to yell out his opinion loudly enough that others could barely carry on a conversation for it.

sighs,
ok bcglorf:>> ^bcglorf:

HOW in the supposed land of the free can we have more people incarcerated than any other country COMBINED?

You might want to check your facts. I'm just guessing, but China likely has more all by itself. If your just talking per capita, then North Korea would seem to be in a class all it's own.
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/prisonindex/globalincarceration.html
facts..... a pesky lot eh?
but i should have quanitfied "per capita"....my bad.


"made his point"
Was his point that he can make an ass of himself and disrupt others in the process without being arrested? If that was his point, he seems to have merely demonstrated just how extensive the freedom that he abuses are.

I fail to see any other point he was getting across save the right to yell out his opinion loudly enough that others could barely carry on a conversation for it."
oooook....survey SAYS:
his point was to make people uncomfortable in their silent aquiesence.did he succeed?thats debatable...but he did make it.
MY point was that i did not have a problem with his methods,and i stated the reasons why.
i find it amusing that so many people in america espouse the virtues of "freedom of speech" and "right of redress" but only when it comes to what THEY feel is appropriate.
THAT form of protest is fine,because i agree with what they are saying/doing..
THAT form is NOT fine because i dont like their modum operandi.
freedom of speech is FREEDOM of SPEECH,and if nobody is being harmed then its a GO in my book.
would you feel the same if this was a sit-in at an abortion clinic?as the protesters shout at the young women walking into the clinic?holding signs of aborted fetuses?
or is your only beef with the fact that it stopped business for a bit?
ok...you dont like his methods..who cares!
he has the RIGHT to protest,your personal opinion has little or nothing to do with his RIGHT.
just as i have the RIGHT to disagree with you,and i most emphatically do.

or is your only beef with the fact that it stopped business for a bit?

More than enough reason to object, IMO. "Free speech" is not the right to inconvenience and delay every other person who just happened to pick your personal "Asshat Day" to try and get something done.

I have no patience with those who try to provoke an incident and film it for their own profit. And that's clearly what this guy does, and has done for a long time. I'm not a fan of violence, but I won't shed a tear when the jackass gets his face pounded by one of his frustrated victims.

object away my friend,it matters not,because it has nothing to do with my premise.
im talking right to protest,your talking about inconvenience.
i would guess you would have the same problem with michael moore's style of protest also?
and what "incident" was he attempting to provoke other than saying what he wanted to say?
filming it was just a prudent decision considering.where he "profits" i dont see,not in any monetary fashion at least.
interesting how your not a "fan" of violence,yet have no problem if some other "victim" pounds his face in.uh..WHA?
and who are his supposed "victims"?
the people he spoke to,who seemed pretty intent on ignoring him anyways?
THOSE are victims?
christ on a stick!are you fucking kidding me?
"the skinny,incredibly pale man,who needs a shave, said harsh words about the county government i work for,and referred to people in jail i dont know..make the bad man go away"
for the love of FUCK!
if thats being a "victim" then my country has turned into a nation of pussies.
this...
this is what i served for..
not "rights" but so that people can not hear harsh language...
thats it...
im going to go shoot myself in the face.
mike judge is a fucking prophet.

I'm not sure which side to take on this, but regardless, this post is disingenuous.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
So the only reason you should go to jail is if you damage someone's property or if you harm someone?
According to this prick, Chester jerking off to kiddie porn he downloaded shouldn't go to jail.

Whoever produced the child porn engaged in "harming someone" to say the least, and consumers of this product are the reason the industry exists, so it's not a large logical leap to conclude that Chester falls under the definition of "harming someone".

The guy the takes pictures up girl's skirts shouldn't go to jail.

This is pretty clear-cut. Emotional harm is harm.

The the guy going 130 down the freeway shouldn't go to jail. The guy driving recklessly drunk down the road shouldn't go to jail.

These are getting less and less defensible. "Increasing the probability that you will harm someone by an outrageously insane degree" is virtually equivalent to "harming someone" as far as the law is concerned.

if nobody is being harmed then its a GO in my book.

And that is EXACTLY the point. You, somehow, don't see any harm being caused by this guy.

Yet anybody trying to do business there on that day was delayed considerably by him, costing them the loss of their time. That is harm, by forcing that inconvenience on people unlucky enough to do business on this guys chosen protest day.

His buddy was videotaping people in a county office, presumably people paying things like traffic tickets and other business they may not want public(now they are on youtube). It should be their right to request they NOT be filmed while doing business there. That right was violated by this guy, again causing harm.

The county office then had to call the police when the guy refused to respect everyone's wishes to not be filmed. This cost everybody money and put people at risk by tying up a police officer for no good reason. Again, causing harm.


(T)hats the only beef i really see in your argument. That this man was interrupting "business".

And that isn't harm, why?


mike judge is a fucking prophet.

Seems to me you made him your prophet BEFORE you saw any signs. You might want to consider the possibility your letting personal opinion taint what you see, just a touch.

ok,
so you just gave a longer version of your original point.
then ask me questions i already answered.
and where is this mans right of redress and protest an "opinion"?
you disagree with his methods..ok..got ya.
i dont,for reasons i have already stated.
i enjoy a frisky debate,maybe too much sometimes,but this is no longer a debate.
it's an exercise in circular logic,and it will bear no fruit.
remember my friend,it was YOU who called me to this table.
my original post was misunderstood by MGR(i think anyways),but others,including you decided to take a swipe.
i set my premise,made my argument and i stand by it.
maybe it would help if i said i thought the guy was a sanctimonious prick,because i do,but that would not alter my original point.
you...
on the other hand,did NOT make your argument,at least in a quantitative sense.
if i may be allowed to sum up your argument.
"the guy was acting like a rude dickhead harrassing those people who did nothing to him."
i actually agree with that,but that had NOTHING to do with my argument.
my point is he had a RIGHT to do that,and i did not necessarily disagree with his methods.he may be a sanctimonious prick,but he has the RIGHT to be a sanctimonious prick.
the minute you start censoring which form of protest is acceptable (already done btw.i linked the page)and which ones offend the tender sensibilities of a choice few,when will that form of censor stop?
the RIGHT to protest peaceably,even if unpopular,should never be tampered with.because the minute one right is gone,its gone forever.
while this man may have been annoying,he didnt not harm anyone.did not threaten and when asked to leave,he did just that.
dont be so quick to throw away a right based on a "personal opinion".
thats all im saying.
disagree with his tactics,hell..hate the man if you want,but dont fuck with that freedom.
we already have "free speech" zones,lets not give big brother any more reason to shut us up.
seewhatimsayin?
in any case,nice tossin the debate ball with ya.
hope you at least see where im coming from,
if not..
well..
dont know what to tell ya bud.
peace.

soldiers who commit war crimes are just "following orders" you'd have to be a "jackass" to confront them about it, you don't have any business complaining to anyone except the president.

logic fail.

>> ^imstellar28:
soldiers who commit war crimes are just "following orders" you'd have to be a "jackass" to confront them about it, you don't have any business complaining to anyone except the president.

Actually, in this case it's more like going to the local IRS branch and "confronting" the clerks there, and accusing them of being guilty for what was done in Guantanamo by people who aren't them, and who aren't answerable to them.

Logic fail.

This is a bit like calling up the GE home appliance support line to accuse the guy who answers of being a murderer because he works for GE, and GE built the engines that are used on the aircraft that bring supplies to Guantanamo, so therefore he may as well have waterboarded detainees to death with his own two hands.

This isn't a case of accepting the Nuremberg defense, the "I'm only following orders" defense. This is the "I didn't do anything illegal or immoral, directly or indirectly, now get out of the way, please, I have other customers waiting" defense.

You want the law changed, and for taxes to end? Great, best of luck on that. How is harassing people in the county clerk's office going to accomplish that?

>> ^nibiyabi:
I'm not sure which side to take on this, but regardless, this post is disingenuous.

"Increasing the probability that you will harm someone by an outrageously insane degree" is virtually equivalent to "harming someone" as far as the law is concerned.


And as far as the law is concerned if you disturb the peace, you go to jail.

No one would know about Chester's naughty little habbits if the law wasn't looking for people like him. His actions have no effect on what happened to little kids, direct or indirect. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure it's on a level a little more subtle than "industry." Upskirt guy? If no one knew, then no harm done, right?

In this moron's argument, the drunk guy or the speeder haven't harmed anyone, so they're good peaceful people.

maybe it would help if i said i thought the guy was a sanctimonious prick,because i do,but that would not alter my original point.


No, it wouldn't help to state the obvious. It's his right to do that if he wants to.


You on the other hand,did NOT make your argument, at least in a quantitative sense.


Do you not understand what an argument is?
Or do you not know what the word quantitative means?

I listed 3 separate examples of harm that was caused by this guys actions. I ask if you considered a fourth:"That this man was interrupting "business" to be harm as well.

My argument, which you seemed to agree to in previous posts, was that if the guy is causing harm then it should no longer be legal. If you disagree with the examples of harm then refute them, but you can't just wave your arms around pretending they don't exist.

Just a few points...

Saying that the guy is an ass and should have chosen another method of protest is not the same as saying that it should be illegal for him to protest. He's "free" to be an ass, and others are "free" to point out how counterproductive it is.

Freedom of assembly does not include freedom to obstruct government business. They are within their rights to ask him to leave the building... he can go outside and protest all he wants.

Pestering the clerks is pointless. It's like bitching at an army private about the invasion of Iraq, or a Wal-Mart stocker about the price of an item.

As far as the military, soldiers are only required to follow "legal" orders. If a person's commander orders them to do something illegal then the person is not required to do it. However, that doesn't mean that the soldier has any control over which legal orders are issued.

They were merely doing their jobs when they took the Jews from the train to the showers.

Because aiding in the death (and knowing you're doing it) is anything at all like being a clerk at the city hall.

I guess your point is the entire nation of Germany was filled with evil people just before 1945.

Most Germans didn't know what was happening until it was too late. They were told that the Jews were being relocated, not murdered. After people caught on, if they spoke out against what the Nazi regime was doing they might as well have been Jews themselves.

>> ^blankfist:
They were merely doing their jobs when they took the Jews from the train to the showers.


Collecting taxes isn't the same thing as committing genocide, no matter how many times you say it is.

Yeah, it is. Thats what I'm saying. There wouldn't be any Iraq invasion if there weren't any army privates just like there wouldn't be any taxes if there weren't any tax collectors. Somebody has to do the job, and if nobody is willing to do it for moral or philosophical reasons (aka not willing to dump dead bodys in a gas chamber) then it will never happen.

These clerks are a good a target as any. They fact that they think they are innocent perhaps makes them even better targets than those higher up who know they are guilty.

>> ^Psychologic:
It's like bitching at an army private about the invasion of Iraq

>> ^NetRunner:
Collecting taxes isn't the same thing as committing genocide, no matter how many times you say it is.

Don't claim certainty from your inferences; I never said collecting taxes is the same as genocide. I was making a point, not a comparison. Those who took the Jews from the train did so without individual accountability, and it's important to note that.

I am glad to see the Republican and the Democrat joining together to fight the pro-statist, pro-authoritarian, anti-liberty fight. And both of you with identical blue names, too. Adorable.

^ Individual accountability.

If I read your post correctly, you are implying that the clerks are operating with no individual accountability. That isn't really the case because the clerks are still bound by law in their actions. If they were steal a person's wallet in the course of their job (or lead someone to their death in a gas chamber) then they would definitely be held accountable for those actions (assuming it was provable anyway).

The clerks are basically the people servicing one end of a contract. The US government has decided that anyone who chooses to live within it's borders are subject to taxation, and documentation of the penalties for refusing to comply with that taxation is freely available.

Basically, if you don't agree to taxation then don't agree to live where the taxes are required. If you choose to live there then don't act surprised when the established laws are enforced (including laws/practices that you may not agree with).


Having said that, people are more than welcome to disagree with any law/practice that they want (I know of multiple I don't like). There are methods for changing laws built into the governmental structure, but there is still an expectation for enforcing laws until they are changed. Revolution is also an option, though technically illegal itself. =)

@Psychologic
i dont want to speak for anybody, but to me it less to do with individual accountability and everything to do with silent consent.
taxation being a whole other issue. ian freeman seemed like he was using the opportunity while paying his taxes in dollar bills to utilize the time to address the very people working for the institution that was jailing people for political reasons,not lawful ones.
he did so peacefully,and left when authorities asked him to leave.
mario savio puts it best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcx9BJRadfw
i forgot who said this,but its a powerful statement.
"those who are never more completely enslaved are the ones deluded that they are,in actuality...free"
which i believe is a large portion of americans.people who have no idea that by their actions,or inactions perpetuate a system that slowly robs them of their freedoms,and enslaves them even further.
silent consent is a form of apathy that hurts us all.
by not saying anything,keeping your head down and off the radar.by this silence you agree with the powers that be,and its methods.
the subject of fear politics is a whole other discussion.
i love your thoughtful commentary psychologic,and i did not mean to butt in,but i felt it prudent to clarify.
peace.

"Basically, if you don't agree to taxation then don't agree to live where the taxes are required."

Ah, so is this one of those "if you don't like it, then leave" arguments?

The clerks would be individually accountable if they stole a wallet, yes. Personal accountability is probably higher with clerks than with police officers, so this is hardly a good issue to be arguing against. Still, the money that is extracted from us to pay these taxes (which the clerks are there to facilitate) is also used to pay for violence against us or against others throughout the world.

Still, I think you're all reading a bit too much into my comment and looking too hard for a literal connection between Nazis and these clerks. But, I'm glad it has pissed people off enough to comment and downvote it. You're all Nazis!

^ Psychologic, If I could quality a comment I would do so for that one.

>> ^imstellar28:
Yeah, it is. Thats what I'm saying. There wouldn't be any Iraq invasion if there weren't any army privates just like there wouldn't be any taxes if there weren't any tax collectors. Somebody has to do the job, and if nobody is willing to do it for moral or philosophical reasons (aka not willing to dump dead bodys in a gas chamber) then it will never happen.

Yeah, but in the real world there's always going to be someone who's willing to do anything, including gassing <insert scapegoat group here> for money.

But that's essentially a non-sequitor -- these people aren't doing anything immoral or illegal.

>> ^blankfist:
Don't claim certainty from your inferences; I never said collecting taxes is the same as genocide. I was making a point, not a comparison.

Yeah, you were making the point that people working in an office to collect taxes is just like being a guard at a death camp. I'm sure the message was the lack of accountability, and not an attempt to splatter both kinds of people with the same blood.

Again, the clerks aren't doing anything immoral or illegal.

The guy staging his publicity stunt "protest", on the other hand, does seem to be doing something both immoral and illegal.

There may be an argument to be made about 1st amendment rights, but there are limits. You can't make it illegal for me to hold a pro-Obama rally, but presumably you can make it illegal for me to choose to host one inside your house without your permission.

As for immoral, well, he's creating a scene, and accusing non-violent people of being violent, and refusing to leave when asked. I noticed that he seemed to leave peacefully when the police officer ordered him to leave, though not right away. He also seemed to be trying to provoke the officer, even once he left the building.

He's a big fucking pussy. The video would've had a much better ending if he'd stuck to his morals, and martyred himself. He should have refused to obey a lawful order from the officer, and got arrested, and perhaps yelled out "help, help, I'm being repressed!"

The whole point here seemed to me to be his own self-aggrandizement, and to attempt to manufacture a situation that he could use for political propaganda. Nothing wrong happened here, except what he himself did.

Your brush is broad, NetRunner. For the last time, I wasn't making a comparison of the clerk's taxation and the act of genocide. Please, stop boring us with your hyperbolic vitriol.

The comparison to be made is of those who follow law blindly or without considering it's effect. On this site alone people are wanting to ban westy for racist comments and citing the rules of the FAQ as proof he deserves to be forced out. It will be the "rules" or the "laws" that will ultimately be his undoing, I assure you.

I'm tired of people using "but it's the law" as reason enough to do terrible, violent things to other people. In your democracy, NR, the majority creates the law, leaving the minority to lay at their feet begging for clemency.

And those who hide behind the veil of law and quote it as moral are acting with gross self-righteousness.

What exactly is is grossly self-righteous about enforcing a law that was established as a means to keep good order in our society?

^You should read the sentence again: "And those who hide behind the veil of law and quote it as moral are acting with gross self-righteousness."

It was specific to a comment above. Though, I would question what you mean by 'good order'. Order? As in obedience? I get why we need laws against murder and rape, sure, but notwithstanding common necessity laws I wonder what else you mean by order.

Outlawing free choice by declaring war on drugs? Devising a permission society where you must gain a 'permit' to move about the roads or marry the one you love? The Anti-terrorism laws where detainees lose Habeas Corpus? These are the laws that keep order?

Order, as in being able to conduct business without some assclown coming in and going on some tirade yelling at people who just trying to do their job.

Let's go full circle. They were merely doing their jobs when they took the Jews from the train to the showers.

Yes, to kill them.

All these people were doing is taking the taxes so that the local government can fun all the programs, departments and services that keep the city functioning like a normal community. No loss of life, no genocide. What the hell else are you getting at?

^I don't know. I just like fucking with you, Gunnie.

Haha. You're such a douche nozzle.

>> ^blankfist:
^And those who hide behind the veil of law and quote it as moral are acting with gross self-righteousness.

Who quoted the law? Who made the argument that because something is the law it's moral?

I said that in this case, morals and the law are on the right side with what happened here.

>> ^blankfist:
I'm tired of people using "but it's the law" as reason enough to do terrible, violent things to other people. In your democracy, NR, the majority creates the law, leaving the minority to lay at their feet begging for clemency.

Talk about hyperbolic vitriol.

I think, in essence, your point is that you think more people should actively look at their actions, and the consequences of them, rather than abdicating that to some other power, be it government or corporate, right?

I totally agree.

However, I think you're wrong to accuse these people of being unthinking servants of a violent gang of racketeers -- known by other people as the county government.

In my vision of democracy, I expect that there will never be unanimous agreement on virtually any issue of importance. I agree that certain principles should guide all law, even if a majority of people would want to make exceptions from time to time. You and I probably disagree on what those principles should be, but I'd say we agree more than we disagree.

I also think that government should only act with the consent of the governed -- to me (and the founding fathers) that means representation chosen by majority vote in elections, not that every individual citizen can tell the government to go to hell if they so choose.

Law is all about making subjective moral principles into objective, equally applied delineations of behaviors that result in punishments. I think our system for creating those laws, using a legislature of elected representatives, with the other two coequal branches of government acting as checks and balances is a good one. It's not perfect, but I haven't heard you present a change to it that seems like an improvement upon it.

Going around harassing tax collectors is not going to help make changes within the system, and it's not as if this incident is going to spark a civil war either. If it makes this guy feel good (or brings him the attention he craves), more power to him. But let's not mistake this for being anything but a very public temper tantrum about paying taxes.