Jordan, I have read over your last few posts a couple of times and I still don't understand what you are trying to say or the distinction you are trying to make.
And I do believe that is part of the problem. I think I just missed whatever point or conversation the question was trying to create.
Of course the judgment over whether the government is operating unjustly enough to make a person want to break the law to protest it is subjective. That was my entire point -- that, especially if you are in a group that gets treated extra-shittily by the government, I am not going to judge your methods of addressing those grievances, because I haven't walked in your shoes.
And this is the crux of what I was talking about. I didn't engage necessarily with anything beyond that first question, because that first question was fundamentally flawed. And you see it, but maybe not consciously. Here you mentioned operating unjustly. That is a bit more specific, and actually useful, as opposed to some ethereal shitty feeling, which is a non-starter for rational conversation (for me). But the question remains how shitty does one have to be treated, or how shitty does a government need to be? How do you define 'shitty'? You can't. It's different for everyone, and useless for anyone. That was the point I was attempting to make. There can be nothing productive that comes from a conversation that starts from a place like this. Unless the productive thing is to start with a premise that can't be quantified or defined to show that you won't judge people who won't or can't rationally explain their reasoning. Personally, I hold people to a higher standard. I said that my subjective feeling of a shitty government is not a good reason to operate outside the law. And it's not a good reason from anyone else. I highly doubt that the examples you provided recruited anyone to their cause by saying "Oh, I'm doing this because the government is shitty to me". And rightly so.
So ... I dunno, it feels like the discussion has run its course. As usual for political discussions, most folks just said what they thought without engaging with any of the ideas or arguments presented by the other side (me). But I didn't want to ignore your posts directed at me. Unfortunately I wasn't able to grasp your point.
With the starting premise, I'm totally inclined to agree with you. There was no point in engaging without dealing with that first. I was attempting to create a place in which you could modify your question to reflect what was actually important to you in the discussion. Alas, I didn't quite get to that point.
I'm down to continue the conversation, and answer a question that deals with something more quantifiable. Something along the lines of one of the following:
What actions would a government need to take before you decided to operate outside the law to effect change?
What kind of policies would need to be implemented for you to operate outside the law?
What ethical boundaries need to be crossed for you to break the law, and how?
What effects legislated on other people will you not accept?
If you were to operate outside of the law, what would you do?
I just don't know what you were actually trying to ask, and I was trying to avoid putting words in your mouth, but here we are. I'm fine either way, though.
I think that we are actually pretty close to the same page, but without clarifying the beginning premise, I'm not certain if we were even in the same book, and it's just silly to continue without determining that first.
I hope that clarifies where I am coming from.
^ Some break laws to achieve what a majority see as "bad", some break laws to achieve what a majority see as "good." So, of course this matter is tricky, because it gets into "what is good? what is bad?" which is subjective, philosophical, contextual, etc.
I don't think we can assess the value of an idea solely by whether it was pursued inside or outside current law.
I think the topic of "what is good? what is bad?" is distinct from "is it ever okay to break a law, in an attempt to bring about what you believe to be good?" or from "is it okay to call in to a different region?" or from "is it okay to use a fake name?" or from "is it okay to steal another's identity?"
Each of those is a distinct topic, and perhaps worthy of its own thread.
Absolutely correct. We've got a general thread if we want to move it there, but I really want to figure out what topic we are trying to actually discuss, because it's not clear.