Ed Brown : Self Defense or Murder?

[GoodCallYouWin]

Ed Brown is currently holed up inside his home in New Hampshire. The government has already seized his bank accounts and stolen his businesses. Now they want his home and they want to throw him in jail. At the moment, the government has laid seige to his house; while they claim they will wait for him to surrendor there is little doubt in my mind they will attack. This will cause the death of Ed Brown (who is clear, he will defend his home if invaded), probably a few police officers and the numerous supporters inside and outside of his home.

When the police invade, and attack his home and attempt to drag him off to jail, will it be self defense or murder when Ed Brown fires at them?

[kerowo]

You didn't make the most important point clear; did you break the law? If he broke the law and shot a cop or anyone else resisting arrest it's murder.

If The Man is just [censored] with him, it's still murder because The Man writes the rules.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
You didn't make the most important point clear; did you break the law? If he broke the law and shot a cop or anyone else resisting arrest it's murder.

If The Man is just [censored] with him, it's still murder because The Man writes the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think that matters. The reason it isn't self-defense is because everyone knows that you can stop a cop from killing you WAY more easily by simply laying down on the ground. Killing him to protect yourself is totally unnecessary.

[tarheeljks]

when they come to get him, if he kills anyone he is definitely going down for murder. also, it will probably be in the 1st degree b/c i believe he's on record saying he's prepared/willing to get into a shootout w/them

[GoodCallYouWin]

He claims he did not break the law (and that there is no law to break). He has been convicted in a court of law of not paying his taxes.

[GoodCallYouWin]

In absentia.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
He claims he did not break the law (and that there is no law to break). He has been convicted in a court of law of not paying his taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please please please post this in Politics. This isn't exactly the wrong forum for it, but the responses will be WAY more hilarious over there.

[CallMeIshmael]

Murder. By a lot.

[Peter666]

As told, this is definitely self defence from armed robbery.

If the Police have been informed that they will be fired upon for attacking him and his property, then there is a line of communication open which should be used to negotiate a solution before violent action is taken. But as we are only told that the police have "stolen" Ed Brown's other property, Ed Brown has every moral right to defend himself from armed robbery.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
As told, this is definitely self defence from armed robbery.

If the Police have been informed that they will be fired upon for attacking him and his property, then there is a line of communication open which should be used to negotiate a solution before violent action is taken. But as we are only told that the police have "stolen" Ed Brown's other property, Ed Brown has every moral right to defend himself from armed robbery.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Stolen" in the sense that Ed doesn't recognize the legitimacy of the government or some political crap like that. It doesn't matter if I don't like a law I'm still obligated to follow that law or pay the consequences of breaking the law.

At some point the police are going to have to go in and arrest this guy. Even if everyone involved knows it is going to turn out badly. At that point resisting arrest by shooting someone is murder.

[Nielsio]

So the coppers wanto kidnap him and throw him in a dungeon; he is trying to defend himself from that happening. Well, seems obvious who is in the wrong.

[Stormwolf]

we are not living in murray rothbard's world guys. if he shoots the cops thats not self-defense

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
So the coppers wanto kidnap him and throw him in a dungeon; he is trying to defend himself from that happening. Well, seems obvious who is in the wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, because Ed is a convicted cop killing pedophile with overdue library books.

If you are going to put this in a world were all cops are parts of death squads and more likely to be criminals than the criminals, the OP needs to say so upfront. Otherwise I'm assuming this is a Waco situation and Ed is an anti-government kook.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As told, this is definitely self defence from armed robbery.

If the Police have been informed that they will be fired upon for attacking him and his property, then there is a line of communication open which should be used to negotiate a solution before violent action is taken. But as we are only told that the police have "stolen" Ed Brown's other property, Ed Brown has every moral right to defend himself from armed robbery.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Stolen" in the sense that Ed doesn't recognize the legitimacy of the government or some political crap like that. It doesn't matter if I don't like a law I'm still obligated to follow that law or pay the consequences of breaking the law.

At some point the police are going to have to go in and arrest this guy. Even if everyone involved knows it is going to turn out badly. At that point resisting arrest by shooting someone is murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

A bad law is no law, and if the government decides to steal private property, that is an act of tyranny which one has the right to defend themselves from.

Also, if one does not recognize the legitimacy of the government and defies them, they are a revolutionary and not a murderer per say. Their actions against the police would be political and not personal. We should call him an insurgent.

[Borodog]

Self-defense. The government and media will style it as murder.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You didn't make the most important point clear; did you break the law? If he broke the law and shot a cop or anyone else resisting arrest it's murder.

If The Man is just [censored] with him, it's still murder because The Man writes the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think that matters. The reason it isn't self-defense is because everyone knows that you can stop a cop from killing you WAY more easily by simply laying down on the ground. Killing him to protect yourself is totally unnecessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can also stop a mugger from killing you WAY more easily than killing him by simply giving up your wallet. That doesn't make killing him to protect yourself murder.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You didn't make the most important point clear; did you break the law? If he broke the law and shot a cop or anyone else resisting arrest it's murder.

If The Man is just [censored] with him, it's still murder because The Man writes the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think that matters. The reason it isn't self-defense is because everyone knows that you can stop a cop from killing you WAY more easily by simply laying down on the ground. Killing him to protect yourself is totally unnecessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can also stop a mugger from killing you WAY more easily than killing him by simply giving up your wallet. That doesn't make killing him to protect yourself murder.

[/ QUOTE ]


The difference between this and a mugging, is that we can be essentially 100% sure that if we werent violent towards the cops, we are not in mortal danger.

Im not really all that familiar with the specifics of self defense, but I believe you can only kill when there is a reasonable threat of death to you.


Now, lets not turn this into one of 1.4 billion "does the government have the right to tax?" threads. We have been down that road more than enough.


But, do the AC people feel the man in the OP has a moral obligation to pay *someone* for the public services he used? It seems unfair for him to both not pay his taxes AND use that which tax dollars pay for.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As told, this is definitely self defense from armed robbery.

If the Police have been informed that they will be fired upon for attacking him and his property, then there is a line of communication open which should be used to negotiate a solution before violent action is taken. But as we are only told that the police have "stolen" Ed Brown's other property, Ed Brown has every moral right to defend himself from armed robbery.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Stolen" in the sense that Ed doesn't recognize the legitimacy of the government or some political crap like that. It doesn't matter if I don't like a law I'm still obligated to follow that law or pay the consequences of breaking the law.

At some point the police are going to have to go in and arrest this guy. Even if everyone involved knows it is going to turn out badly. At that point resisting arrest by shooting someone is murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

A bad law is no law, and if the government decides to steal private property, that is an act of tyranny which one has the right to defend themselves from.

Also, if one does not recognize the legitimacy of the government and defies them, they are a revolutionary and not a murderer per say. Their actions against the police would be political and not personal. We should call him an insurgent.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are under the impression that Ed gets to make the rules or that viewing the rules from Ed's point of view is valid. It isn't. He won't be seen as a revolutionary, he'll be seen as a kook and Fox will laud the police for killing him.

Again, disagreeing with a law doesn't give you the right to be exempt from that law, nor to break other laws. You can try and change the law through civil disobedience, but that doesn't mean just breaking the law, it means taking the consequences for breaking the law as protest. Shooting someone trying to arrest you for breaking a law is not just.

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You didn't make the most important point clear; did you break the law? If he broke the law and shot a cop or anyone else resisting arrest it's murder.

If The Man is just [censored] with him, it's still murder because The Man writes the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think that matters. The reason it isn't self-defense is because everyone knows that you can stop a cop from killing you WAY more easily by simply laying down on the ground. Killing him to protect yourself is totally unnecessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can also stop a mugger from killing you WAY more easily than killing him by simply giving up your wallet. That doesn't make killing him to protect yourself murder.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a terrible analogy for a number of reasons. Equivocation ftl.

[GoodCallYouWin]

Right, but I'm not asking what fox news will think. I'm asking what's right.

I think this is an extremely clear cut case of self defense.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

Self-defense. The government and media will style it as murder.


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with calling it self-defense is that you're not specifying what he's defending himself from.
If a very bad floorman in a casino makes a terrible decision that kills my hand because the dealer lied to him, I could use violence and "defend" myself from the floorman's abominable decision.

Ed Brown is using violence to defend himself form the government's decision that he owes them money. He's not protecting himself from death. So the murder isn't *exactly* self defense in the same way that we think of stabbing a rapist or pepper-spraying a mugger.

In the case of the rapist, he is attempting a violent act upon you (and he might kill you afterwards). In the case of the mugger, you cannot be certain that he will not harm you after you hand over your wallet, and therefore killing him or harming him can be construed as legitimate self-defense in a lot of cases.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, but I'm not asking what fox news will think. I'm asking what's right.

I think this is an extremely clear cut case of self defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, we get it, you hate the government, police are bad, fight the power...

[Peter666]

"You are under the impression that Ed gets to make the rules or that viewing the rules from Ed's point of view is valid."

If Ed lived in Bolshevik Russia after the revolution, and the government came to take his land away, is Ed in the wrong for defending himself and his property? Definitely not.

Everything you say is correct from the government's perspective, just like everything I say is correct from Ed's perspective. In the end, we have to be given more facts to make an objective decision.

[CallMeIshmael]

OP,

can you respond to my question.

"do the AC people feel the man in the OP has a moral obligation to pay *someone* for the public services he used? It seems unfair for him to both not pay his taxes AND use that which tax dollars pay for."

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]

"You are under the impression that Ed gets to make the rules or that viewing the rules from Ed's point of view is valid."

If Ed lived in Bolshevik Russia after the revolution, and the government came to take his land away, is Ed in the wrong for defending himself and his property? Definitely not.

Everything you say is correct from the government's perspective, just like everything I say is correct from Ed's perspective. In the end, we have to be given more facts to make an objective decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, my assumption was OP was talking about the US today, not an oppressive dictatorship.

[GoodCallYouWin]

CMI :

No; and it comes down to the fact that you made the decision he should pay for it, not him.

The key point here is not the socio-economic situation, in my mind, it is the fact that all Ed Brown wants to do is stay in his house, which he owns. The government wants to imprision them. Since I reject the concept of the debtors prison, that people can be emprisoned based simply because they owe money, I reject the idea that the government can do it.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
The government wants to imprision them. Since I reject the concept of the debtors prison, that people can be emprisoned based simply because they owe money, I reject the idea that the government can do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? Where in your OP was there anything about what the cops where after him for? You wouldn't like such a tool if you had mentioned a little back story to this.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
CMI :

No; and it comes down to the fact that you made the decision he should pay for it, not him.

[/ QUOTE ]


Very true.

But, assuming he used public property (which is likely to be a very good assumption) he DID choose to use it.



If you want to come on here and tell me a story about a poker player living in thailand who doesnt want to pay taxes to the american government (which, IIRC, they somehow owe) then you have a GREAT argument. Im not sure if I would call his act self-defense, per se, since I believe you need to be in more danger before you can kill in self defense. But, Id certainly call his act 'just', and figure out what to call it later.


However, we arent talking about some guy in Thailand. We are talking about a guy who probably used government property. He drove on government roads, walked in government parks, etc.


I think its safe to say that the government allows the people to use their property under the assumption that people will pay taxes. When they dont, they are trespassing. The guy in the OP is, at the very least, guilty of that.


Whether or not the government *should* own property is, of course, debatable. But, that it *does* isnt.

[GoodCallYouWin]

kerow :

This is not a hypothetical, if you want to find more information google Ed Brown.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
kerow :

This is not a hypothetical, if you want to find more information google Ed Brown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we supposed to know who that is? If he is in America it isn't going to be self defense.

edited to add Ok, after reading the first sentence of the wikipedia article it turns out it wouldn't be self defense. Just another tax kook. How about from now on you keep this crap in politics where it belongs?

[GoodCallYouWin]

kerowo :

I cannot account for how ignorant you may or may not be...

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
kerowo :

I cannot account for how ignorant you may or may not be...

[/ QUOTE ]

Missed the edit, however it doesn't change anything I've said so far in the thread.

[CORed]

In the most likely scenario, it will be a moot point. If he shoots at the cops, they will most likely kill him.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You didn't make the most important point clear; did you break the law? If he broke the law and shot a cop or anyone else resisting arrest it's murder.

If The Man is just [censored] with him, it's still murder because The Man writes the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think that matters. The reason it isn't self-defense is because everyone knows that you can stop a cop from killing you WAY more easily by simply laying down on the ground. Killing him to protect yourself is totally unnecessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can also stop a mugger from killing you WAY more easily than killing him by simply giving up your wallet. That doesn't make killing him to protect yourself murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but it doesn't make it self-defense either. Maybe it does, does self-defense cover your wallet? Can I kill someone who is stealing my TV?

[GoodCallYouWin]

Not legally, but if I was on the jury I'd vote to acquit.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Not legally, but if I was on the jury I'd vote to acquit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I'm interested by this, so lets take it a little further. You think what should happen? He should be allowed to stay in his home? I'm ok with that. He can never leave, right? At least, he can never leave and make use of anything provided by the government. And he probably can't have people visiting him and bringing him things provided by the government. If he can come up with some way to live the rest of his life without using a single thing provided by the government, it would be fine by me. How do you see this going? We can keep it wholly hypothetical, if you want.

[GoodCallYouWin]

vhawk : My response was to your point about murdering a guy with a TV; but it actually fits somewhat with my personal view on the broader subject.

The Amish don't have to pay taxes. Do you force them to stay on their land? I don't mind not letting him use food stamps or medicaid but public schools but he never used these things in the first place; as to restricting his right to travel, well unfortunately for you the Constitution prevents that. That doesn't mean much now-a-days but I think it's important.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
vhawk : My response was to your point about murdering a guy with a TV; but it actually fits somewhat with my personal view on the broader subject.

The Amish don't have to pay taxes. Do you force them to stay on their land? I don't mind not letting him use food stamps or medicaid but public schools but he never used these things in the first place; as to restricting his right to travel, well unfortunately for you the Constitution prevents that. That doesn't mean much now-a-days but I think it's important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but of course, the Constitution (and associated laws) says he has to pay taxes too. Sorry if I don't find THAT to be a compelling argument.

My point about his travel restrictions are that it seems immoral for him to steal use of roads.

[GoodCallYouWin]

"Right, but of course, the Constitution"... "says he has to pay taxes too"

OH RLY?

[GoodCallYouWin]

Now I'll agree with you that the COURTS say he has to pay taxes, and congress says he has to pay taxes... but the constitution certainly doesn't say he has to pay income tax (or even that the government can claim he can pay income tax). Now the bill of rights may alter that, I'm not up to date enough on the 16th Amendment to be sure.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
"Right, but of course, the Constitution"... "says he has to pay taxes too"

OH RLY?

[/ QUOTE ]

REALLY? You are just going to cut out the intervening part of my post, huh? Wow. Ok, maybe this won't be as productive as I thought.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
...I'll ... say he has to pay taxes, and ... constitution certainly does... say he has to pay income tax...

[/ QUOTE ]

ORLY?

[GoodCallYouWin]

I happen to think if a law is unconstitutional it doesn't apply; it doesn't matter what the courts say, they still can't take away your guns or your freedom of speech.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
I happen to think if a law is unconstitutional it doesn't apply; it doesn't matter what the courts say, they still can't take away your guns or your freedom of speech.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does your opinion on this matter? Are you a lawyer? A consititutional scholar? The law says pay your taxes it also says the way to challenge a law is in court not holed up in your house in a standoff.

Also, according to this: http://ask.yahoo.com/20030821.html the Amish pay all taxes except Social Security Tax, and then only if they are employed inside one of their communities.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I happen to think if a law is unconstitutional it doesn't apply; it doesn't matter what the courts say, they still can't take away your guns or your freedom of speech.

[/ QUOTE ]

I missed the part in the constitution where it says, "only those laws apply that goodcallyouwin says apply". I vaguely remember the part about 'what the courts say matters'.

Perhaps we need a re-read.

luckyme

[CallMeIshmael]

OP,

it has been brought up twice in this thread (once by me and once by vhawk) and neither time did you address the issue:

Did this person trespass if he used public roads? (or, if not trespass, per se, at least, was he in the wrong to use roads?)

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
You didn't make the most important point clear; did you break the law? If he broke the law and shot a cop or anyone else resisting arrest it's murder.

If The Man is just [censored] with him, it's still murder because The Man writes the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFMFT.

[GoodCallYouWin]

"
Did this person trespass if he used public roads? (or, if not trespass, per se, at least, was he in the wrong to use roads?) "

No. Since the government has already stolen millions of his dollars and at least one of his businesses, they have been compensated.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
"
Did this person trespass if he used public roads? (or, if not trespass, per se, at least, was he in the wrong to use roads?) "

No. Since the government has already stolen millions of his dollars and at least one of his businesses, they have been compensated.

[/ QUOTE ]


If I trespass on your property, then later mail you $50, it doesnt mean I didnt trespass.

Ed Brown used public roads during the 5+ years he was evading taxes. Was he trespassing DURING THOSE YEARS?

[GoodCallYouWin]

"If I trespass on your property, then later mail you $50, it doesnt mean I didnt trespass."

I'd be willing to forgive you, for the $50.

"
Ed Brown used public roads during the 5+ years he was evading taxes. Was he trespassing DURING THOSE YEARS? "

No, because you can't trespass on public property... regardless, even if he had 'trespassed' I'm not sure how that's germane to the case... clearly if his crime is trespassing he has paid his dues.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
"If I trespass on your property, then later mail you $50, it doesnt mean I didnt trespass."

I'd be willing to forgive you, for the $50.

"
Ed Brown used public roads during the 5+ years he was evading taxes. Was he trespassing DURING THOSE YEARS? "

No, because you can't trespass on public property... regardless, even if he had 'trespassed' I'm not sure how that's germane to the case... clearly if his crime is trespassing he has paid his dues.

[/ QUOTE ]

It might not be relevant to the case, but it was relevant to my follow-up hypothetical questions. What I'm wondering is what should happen to him, in your opinion. If he refuses to pay taxes, how can you justify him continuing to use government services?

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You didn't make the most important point clear; did you break the law? If he broke the law and shot a cop or anyone else resisting arrest it's murder.

If The Man is just [censored] with him, it's still murder because The Man writes the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think that matters. The reason it isn't self-defense is because everyone knows that you can stop a cop from killing you WAY more easily by simply laying down on the ground. Killing him to protect yourself is totally unnecessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

On this reasoning, if cornered by a serial killer you can prevent yourself from being murdered by agreeing to die...

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
No, because you can't trespass on public property... regardless

[/ QUOTE ]

Says who?

The government has no obligation to let you use their roads. They do so, under the assumption you pay taxes. If you dont pay your taxes, then you are not respecting their property rights by using their roads.

And the fact that Ed likely enjoyed other public goods is very much germane to this case. He is a thief. The very thing he accuses the government of being.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You didn't make the most important point clear; did you break the law? If he broke the law and shot a cop or anyone else resisting arrest it's murder.

If The Man is just [censored] with him, it's still murder because The Man writes the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think that matters. The reason it isn't self-defense is because everyone knows that you can stop a cop from killing you WAY more easily by simply laying down on the ground. Killing him to protect yourself is totally unnecessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

On this reasoning, if cornered by a serial killer you can prevent yourself from being murdered by agreeing to die...

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure you can. But that doesn't make killing him unnecessary to save your life. I don't think the definition of self-defense has anything to do with 'preventing murder.' Not really sure what your point is, here, Boro's was much better.

[GoodCallYouWin]

"If he refuses to pay taxes, how can you justify him continuing to use government services? "

Well they've already stolen millions of his dollars and his wife's business. What's the going rate on a toll road?

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
"If he refuses to pay taxes, how can you justify him continuing to use government services? "

Well they've already stolen millions of his dollars and his wife's business. What's the going rate on a toll road?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you are unclear on the meaning of the word "stolen?" If you don't pay taxes the government is going to come and get that money from you. LDO.

[GoodCallYouWin]

"Perhaps you are unclear on the meaning of the word "stolen?""

Taking what does not belong to you?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
"If he refuses to pay taxes, how can you justify him continuing to use government services? "

Well they've already stolen millions of his dollars and his wife's business. What's the going rate on a toll road?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't buy it. Up until he started this little protest, he was presumably paying his taxes, however begrudgingly, and using the services provided by the government. He probably thought he was getting a raw deal, and he probably, in fact, was. Then he decided he wasn't going to pay anymore. From that point on, he can't ethically justify using any more government services, regardless of how much he has already paid in his lifetime.

FWIW, I pretty much agree that taxes are theft and I think you can morally and ethically refuse to pay them. You just can't use any government services after that, else you are stealing as well. This holds even in ugly situations where the government has monopolized an industry or service so that you simply CANNOT get it in any other way. You are SOL.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
"Perhaps you are unclear on the meaning of the word "stolen?""

Taking what does not belong to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

So when you are fined for breaking the law the police are stealing from you as well? Or do you not recognize the authority of the police to fine you for littering or speeding?

[GoodCallYouWin]

vhawk :

Basically you make a bunch of assumptions and then go on to talk about them.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
vhawk :

Basically you make a bunch of assumptions and then go on to talk about them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me which of those are wrong, and we can have a discussion. You seem to be avoiding a bunch of questions. You STILL haven't told me what you think should happen with this guy. You think the cops should just leave, and let him live his life, taking full advantage of government services and goods, without paying taxes, until he dies?

[GoodCallYouWin]

"So when you are fined for breaking the law the police are stealing from you as well? Or do you not recognize the authority of the police to fine you for littering or speeding?"

I've actually been fined a number of times (drunk in public and a few more things), and I will never pay those fines.

[GoodCallYouWin]

" You just can't use any government services after that"

A more rational approach would be you can use government services to the degree that the money the government has stolen from you. So they've taken millions of dollars and his wifes business... what's the going rate on a toll road?

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
"So when you are fined for breaking the law the police are stealing from you as well? Or do you not recognize the authority of the police to fine you for littering or speeding?"

I've actually been fined a number of times (drunk in public and a few more things), and I will never pay those fines.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when the government tries to collect those fines you are going to claim they are stealing? The more you type the more of a kook you become.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
" You just can't use any government services after that"

A more rational approach would be you can use government services to the degree that the money the government has stolen from you. So they've taken millions of dollars and his wifes business... what's the going rate on a toll road?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that isn't more rational.