Bamcei

I think Tracinski finished it off pretty well: http://www.intellectualactivist.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=1242 It definitely meshes with my understanding of history. What do you guys think?

I'm not clear, are you not posting your essay because of cowardice, or because you haven't finished it?

@Eiuol I'm not clear what you are arguing. Is using your personal standards to judge the law and decide your actions accordingly right or wrong? Or that you only ought to break the law under exceptional circumstances in the context of a living in a liberal democratic society? Certainly the contexts in which vigilante justice in the traditional sense would be limited. What about defending yourself when it is unlawful to do so? I also see exploiting invalid laws as essentially the same as using force yourself. The only difference is that you are co-opting the state and eliminating the legal risk. @icosohedron I was not claiming that, only that force is the means to defending values.

I was trying to ask a broader question of principle, which many early replies addressed well. I don't know how this turned into a discussion of how government should be funded. Tax evasion is just one relevant context that the principle of abiding by the rule of law can be applied. What about vigilantism? Or exploiting invalid laws to fight an enemy?

I have been studying Objectivism for a while, and this is a problem I have not been able to resolve. Many Objectivists claim that unjust laws should be obeyed out of a respect for the rule of law, and that tax evasion is immoral. This sounds like intrinsicism. I claim that obedience to the law ought to only go so far as it is in your self interest. If you can get away with evading taxes, you ought to. Your only concern should be weighing the risk of your life and freedom with the sacrifice of values to an unjust law.