Rule Of Law

[Tom Robinson]

Oakes's point was that breaking the law was okay if it was in the form of civil-disobedience. WHat he objects to is breaking it "on the quiet" and hoping to get away with it.

"Get away with it" meaning, of course, to "get away" with keeping what is rightfully one's own. What is the point of sending a heads-up to the enforcers of immoral laws? So that they may, with even greater efficiency, deprive us of our liberty and property? A citizen is under no more obligation to keep busybodies in government aware of his actions than he is to tell common street muggers how much money is in his wallet.

[JMeganSnow]

Oakes's point was that breaking the law was okay if it was in the form of civil-disobedience. WHat he objects to is breaking it "on the quiet" and hoping to get away with it.

And my point is that it civil disobedience is NOT okay because it abrogates the rights of other individuals and there cannot be such a thing as a right to violate rights.

Students engaging in a sit-in are violating property rights. Ditto for protesters blocking a major thoroughfare. You may want to try reading The Return of the Primitive if you haven't already.

[DavidOdden]

Ohio

    It is illegal to fish for whales on Sunday.

I'm willing to believe that Ohio has loads of wrong laws, but I don't believe this. ORC is online searchable and "whale" or "whales" never appears in the state laws of Ohio. I think this is an urban legend.

Breast feeding is not allowed in public.

This isn't true (click, click) but what seems to be true is that showing an adult female nipple in public is indecent exposure.

These kinds of claims would be more credible if the actual citation of the law were given.

[DavidOdden]

What is the point of sending a heads-up to the enforcers of immoral laws?

Rand's two most influential novels contain trials scenes which explain what the point is. Laws have consequences, and faking reality is not rational.

[Zeus]

Rand's two most influential novels contain trials scenes which explain what the point is. Laws have consequences, and faking reality is not rational.

But, there was also Ragnar Danneskjold.

So, in his case, who was faking? The law-breakers, or the law-makers?

The instances in which one may choose to break the law are contextual. I would break the law if my life - or my child's - depended on it. I do not think it wise to break just any law one disagrees with, but I do not consider it immoral to do so.

I have no sympathy for immoral laws, their ratifiers, or their enforcers; as Ayn Rand wrote, pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent.

Anyone who would condemn a creator for disobeying unjust laws is being immoral.

[JMeganSnow]

I'm willing to believe that Ohio has loads of wrong laws, but I don't believe this. ORC is online searchable and "whale" or "whales" never appears in the state laws of Ohio. I think this is an urban legend.

This isn't true (click, click) but what seems to be true is that showing an adult female nipple in public is indecent exposure.

These kinds of claims would be more credible if the actual citation of the law were given.

I noticed that too; several of the laws listed on the site do not have that specific wording, however, the interpretation they list is "technically" illegal under the law.

I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the actual wording provides that it's illegal to do any kind of hunting except strictly defined "fishing" i.e. for fish, on Sunday. Where would you fish for whales in Ohio anyway?

[Tom Robinson]

Rand's two most influential novels contain trials scenes which explain what the point is. Laws have consequences, and faking reality is not rational.

I have no argument with Roark destroying Corlandt Homes and then taking the heat for it.

At the same time, there is nothing immoral or irrational in the practice of insulating oneself from coercion, by government or free-lance thug. If a businessman conducts certain transactions off the books to evade taxes, he is violating no one's rights, depriving no one of what is rightfully his. If this is "faking reality," then so is having a money safe in the shape of a Pepsi can to mislead burglars. Or, for that matter, creating a mirage to hide the existence of Galt's Gulch.

[plaintext]

Ragnar Danneskjold

Since Ragnar was in open defiance, I suppose his actions could come under the category of disobedience.

A more appropriate example would be Rearden giving metal to people he regarded as capable, even though the law prohibited it. At what point did the world in Atlas Shrugged reach the point where is was okay to disobey laws?

civil disobedience is NOT okay because it abrogates the rights of other individuals

Not necessarily. An example of civil disobedience in this context would be refusal to follow an immoral law. An example would be a doctor providing an abortion to a patient in a country like Ireland (are they still banned there).

[Zeus]

Since Ragnar was in open defiance, I suppose his actions could come under the category of disobedience.

I mentioned Danneskjold because he didn't get caught.

David Odden had alluded to Roark and Rearden, both ending up in court, as symbols of the consequence of breaking the law.

Edited February 9, 2005 by Zeus

[Oakes]

From dumblaws.com:

I am NOT advocating that we follow a bunch of archaic laws that are never or rarely enforced. Like I said in the "Fair Tax" thread, if the government doesn't respect the law enough to enforce it, I need not respect it enough to follow it.

Civil disobedience IS law-breaking. If it weren't there wouldn't be any point.

I recently read The Return of the Primitive and I must say that I agree with Ayn Rand's view of mass civil disobedience, particularly in the form of "sit-ins". It constitutes the use of force against private individuals and as such is immoral. If the protesters get jailed and fined they deserve it.

I realize that it is law-breaking; what I meant was that I don't include civil disobedience in my usage of "law-breaking." Civil disobedience acknowledges the rule of law by intending the act to be caught by the authorities.

I agree that many instances of civil disobedience can be immoral (if the object of protest is misguided) or even should be illegal (if it constitutes an initiation of force). However, I am confused why you think this is always the case.

I have absolutely no qualms about breaking laws that deprive man of his natural rights. For example, post-Civil War Jim Crow laws (in both the North and the South) kept people (including my family) from engaging in free exchange and disposal of their property as they saw fit. Calling on citizens to place coercive laws above their rights and rational self-interest is just another form of state-worshipping idolatry.

First of all, we are talking in the context of modern times in the United States. Second of all, nobody is "[c]alling on citizens to place coercive laws above their rights." We should continue to speak out against them, and engage in open and honest civil disobedience if needed, but as long as society can be considered civilized and rights-respecting, the idea of "breaking laws that deprive man of his natural rights" is inappropriate. Breaking laws is the last-resort measure you take when society is no longer fundamentally free, so unless you are advocating violent revolution now, be prepared to follow the laws.

Anyone who would condemn a creator for disobeying unjust laws is being immoral.

You are ignoring the context of this discussion completely. We are talking about a situation where the law protects our rights enough for us to deal with others with persuasion - where using such a tool becomes in our interests more than breaking laws, because it preserves and acknowledges the rule of law. To say that I "condemn a creator for disobeying unjust laws" leaves the door open for other contexts, such as a totalitarian state (in which case, I would not condemn him).

[Currence]

@ JMeganSnow:

Civil disobedience (CD) is not defined by "sit ins." They were merely an example of CD. Insofar as *any* action violates the rights of others it is immoral, e.g. people sitting in a private businessperson's property when he or she tells them to leave. In defense of my argument that CD does not require actions similar to those taken in the civil rights movement, I offer Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience." In it, he tells of when he refused to pay a tax, plain and simple, and no one's rights were violated.

Please provide an argument as to why the definition of CD necessarily includes violating the rights of others.

@ advocates of the "rule of law" position:

Questions that should clarify this position (if there be any generally agreed upon one):

CD, insofar as it does not violate the rights of another man or woman, is acceptable because one does it while actively proclaiming to a legal representative of some form and/or intending to be caught, and therefore one is not "faking reality" that the law exists?

Breaking the law, as differentiated from CD, is attempting to break a law without intending to be caught?

For proper conceptual analysis, I propose we treat all instances of "breaking the law", in our theoretical discussion, as those that would not also violate someone else's rights or be opposed to one's self interest (not counting the argument that breaking the law is against one's interests); the rational members of this forum can agree that any action violating the rights of another is immoral, and in this discussion we are particularly interested in the morality of actions that, if a law did not prohibit them, would not be immoral.

My position:

Moral actions are those taken in one's self-interest. I judge any action as moral to the extent that it furthers the actor's self-interest, given the context. An easy example to use is taxation. If I did not judge the net negative consequences of getting caught not paying taxes multiplied by the probability of actually getting caught as being greater than the net benefits received from not paying taxes, I would not pay taxes. More simply:

[Cost of getting caught (audit, etc.)][Probability of getting caught] > [Value of taxes][Probability of not getting caught]

When/If this equation ever becomes an equality or the inequality changes, I will not pay my taxes.

Obviously I take a completely economic view on this issue, and I feel that is the only rational position, because one is dealing with an immoral law. There is no such thing as a law that is both "objective" and "immoral", thus any immoral law is, by definition, subjective; it is subject to the fancy and whim of the lawmaker.

While I can (and do!) speak against such immoral laws, I do not observe their right to exist, and I do not believe that the preservation of one right* (speech) obligates me to follow other immoral laws.

I have two arguments against the "anarchy argument" as well.

1. For those of us attempting to achieve anything even close to philosophic rigor, this argument is frankly baseless and without rational defense. Exactly how would my resistance to taxation and other immoral laws result in complete lack of respect of all laws? I respect property rights because they are moral, not because of what the government has deemed "acceptable." Likewise, I respect all moral laws because of their philosophic value: they are moral. What "Uncle Sam" says about anything is of absolutely no concern to me, and yet, I'm a moral, and mostly-law abiding person (I've used firecrackers!). Please defend this transition from breaking immoral laws to absolute anarchy.

2. In an attempt to defeat an irrational argument that may be used to defend the "anarchy" thesis, I will take some pre-emptive action. One cannot rationally say that because one individual chose to not pay taxes (or not follow any immoral law) that *all* individuals would also chose similarly. Nor can one say that all individuals *should* choose similarly. To predict that one person's tax evasion will result in anarchy is historical naïveté: millions of people will not do something even if a few people do it and it is moral. To say, "Well, if it's right for you not to pay taxes, than none of us should, ergo anarchy" is (aside from being undefended, as I said above) also false. I believe one should break an immoral law only if it is in his or her self-interests, contextually speaking. Right now my "taxation inequality" is not favorable, so I would be acting irrationally to evade taxes. But whether any single individual should do something is completely an individual case. To impose upon all the moral choices of one person, disregarding the context in which the choices were made, is nothing short of an adaptation of Kant's Imperative.

As for the violent revolution, let me just say this. I am principled, and I will not allow a contradiction; I do not respect immoral law in small instances, nor do I respect it in large. When the benefits of revolution outweigh the benefits of peaceful persuasion (as long as it exists), then we must revolt. The greatest killer of human life in our history has been government (beats religion!), and I'll point out that I trust my fellow friends more than my congressional representatives.

*If anyone would care to debate this, I'd argue that our right to free speech is not even properly enforced in this country in two ways. One, as long as we lack a consistently defined legal system *no* law can be properly defended by any government official, and as such there is *no* guarantee that the right the law is supposed to uphold will be protected. Second, more practically, there are many, many instances where mere words (aside from "Fire!" or threats) have resulted in fines or prison sentences. Free speech is not as protected as many would like to think.

[DavidOdden]

At what point did the world in Atlas Shrugged reach the point where is was okay to disobey laws?

Rearden is especially apt for illustrating the "consequences of the law" concept. Those laws were irrational, and blatantly so (I especially commend the AS trial). A law which systematically punishes the able and rewards the corrupt causes the destruction of society. That is a fact of reality, not to be evaded. It might be possible to explain why a particular irrational law has such an effect and get the law cancelled, but only if the law-makers generally act rationally. Otherwise, the only way to get rid of evil laws is to empirically experience their horror -- convict the able, halt their productivity, then see what the consequences of the law are. In the short run, if Rearden had done something tricky to seem to comply with the law, it might have saved him some trouble. In the long run, it would have caused more trouble.

Rearden identifies something that's relevant to the matter of acting according to the restrictions of the law:

A prisoner brought to trial can defend himself only if there is an objective principle of justice recognized by his judges, a principle upholding his rights, which they may not violate and which he can invoke. The law, by which you are trying me, holds that there are no principles, that I have no rights and that you may do with me whatever you please. Very well. Do it.

I strongly recommend the trial scene in "The Sanction of the Victim": for me this really puts the issues regarding the rule of law in razor-sharp perspective. (I have to say that I would not have objected if Rand had changed the outcome so that Rearden had been crushed by the court, to emphasize the point about irrational laws, but she did kill Kira to make a point and you don't want heros to suffer; and reality was eventually obeyed in AS so it wasn't crucial for making the overall point).

[Tom Robinson]

First of all, we are talking in the context of modern times in the United States.

Of what significance is the age of the American Republic in determining whether one may rightfully violate a law? One hundred years ago, there was no federal income tax. Now, of course, there is. If the power of the government to rob its subjects has dramatically increased over the past century, then I would suggest that the right of the moral citizen to disobey his oppressor should increase accordingly.

Second of all, nobody is "[c]alling on citizens to place coercive laws above their rights." We should continue to speak out against them, and engage in open and honest civil disobedience if needed, but as long as society can be considered civilized and rights-respecting, the idea of "breaking laws that deprive man of his natural rights" is inappropriate.

You assert this but with what argument? If our society is indeed “civilized and rights-respecting,” then surely it will not collapse if a citizen is able to thwart the government on one of its rights-violating forays. In fact, the more that citizens prevent government coercion, the more ethical our government will be. Therefore, those who believe in man’s rights should cheer every time a citizen prevents an act of coercion. Another thing: how is your insistence that breaking laws is inappropriate not the same as placing “coercive laws above [our] rights”? In we submit to laws that deprive us of what is rightfully ours, we are sacrificing ourselves to immoral government authority.

Breaking laws is the last-resort measure you take when society is no longer fundamentally free,

Again, where is the argument behind this assertion? Why should we wait until our government has become like Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Russia before we start protecting ourselves? This is analogous to saying, don’t avoid a bully’s punches unless you think he’s about to kill you.

so unless you are advocating violent revolution now, be prepared to follow the laws.

False dilemma. I know many people who break laws (i.e. avoid government coercion) who are not advocates of violent revolution.

[Tom Robinson]

In the short run, if Rearden had done something tricky to seem to comply with the law, it might have saved him some trouble. In the long run, it would have caused more trouble.

So let's apply this to America today. Should citizens dutifully inform government of all of their transactions off books, in the black market etc.? Will revealing all their hidden income to the IRS save them trouble in the long run?

[Inspector]

So let's apply this to America today.  Should citizens dutifully inform government of all of their transactions off books, in the black market etc.?  Will revealing all their hidden income to the IRS save them trouble in the long run?

I'm not choosing sides here just yet, but to answer your question: what if everyone who cheated on taxes revealed it at once? (and I do mean everyone) I wonder if it would be enough to collapse the system?

It's kind of a prisoner's dilemma right now.

[JMeganSnow]

Civil disobedience (CD) is not defined by "sit ins."  They were merely an example of CD.  Insofar as *any* action violates the rights of others it is immoral, e.g. people sitting in a private businessperson's property when he or she tells them to leave.  In defense of my argument that CD does not require actions similar to those taken in the civil rights movement, I offer Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience."  In it, he tells of when he refused to pay a tax, plain and simple, and no one's rights were violated.

Please provide an argument as to why the definition of CD necessarily includes violating the rights of others.

You smooged my two distinct statements together into an indistinct mass. I said:

Civil disobedience IS law-breaking. If it weren't there wouldn't be any point.

Arguing that, regardless of one's personal feelings on the matter or what we are discussing right now, if you're engaging in Civil Disobedience you are breaking the law. Words have an exact meaning.

I then went on to say:

I recently read The Return of the Primitive and I must say that I agree with Ayn Rand's view of mass civil disobedience, particularly in the form of "sit-ins". It constitutes the use of force against private individuals and as such is immoral. If the protesters get jailed and fined they deserve it.

I specifically used the term "mass" when referring to Civil Disobedience here; as far as I'm concerned if an individual wants to protest a law he or she finds unjust that's their prerogative, however when you have a MOB doing it by violating the rights of other individuals there is a problem.

[Currence]

You smooged my two distinct statements together into an indistinct mass.  I said:

I specifically used the term "mass" when referring to Civil Disobedience here; as far as I'm concerned if an individual wants to protest a law he or she finds unjust that's their prerogative, however when you have a MOB doing it by violating the rights of other individuals there is a problem.

Thank you for clarifying (pointing out my interpretative error). I apologize for misconstruing your position.

I agree with you that mass disobedience is immoral if the rights of others are violated (I hope everyone here agrees with that one too!).

[Oakes]

Of what significance is the age of the American Republic in determining whether one may rightfully violate a law? One hundred years ago, there was no federal income tax. Now, of course, there is. If the power of the government to rob its subjects has dramatically increased over the past century, then I would suggest that the right of the moral citizen to disobey his oppressor should increase accordingly.

Whether or not the overall oppression has increased is irrelevant. The question is whether the government has increasingly violated your rights. If it today decided to make it illegal for Tom Robinson to buy anything, you would be morally correct to disregard the law and become a fugitive - even if at the same time it enacted free-market reforms for the rest of society. That is why it is important that we stick to talking about modern times in the United States.

You assert this but with what argument? If our society is indeed “civilized and rights-respecting,” then surely it will not collapse if a citizen is able to thwart the government on one of its rights-violating forays. In fact, the more that citizens prevent government coercion, the more ethical our government will be. Therefore, those who believe in man’s rights should cheer every time a citizen prevents an act of coercion.

In other words, your argument is that if a society is civilized and rights-respecting, breaking the unjust laws will not only not undermine those qualities, it will actually improve them. My question is this: When has the government ever responded to law-breakings by removing the laws that are being broken?

The essential quality of a civilized and rights-respecting society is that you do NOT have the streets filled with crowds glorifying and "cheering" on law-breakers. All disagreements are solved by persuasion. If you break any laws, you have fundamentally declared war on the government; you have told them that you no longer accept it as a legitimate protector of rights.

Another thing: how is your insistence that breaking laws is inappropriate not the same as placing “coercive laws above [our] rights”? In we submit to laws that deprive us of what is rightfully ours, we are sacrificing ourselves to immoral government authority.

You are sacrificing nothing and it is not against your interests. "Playing by the rules" of civilized society is very much in your interests, because it maintains your integrity: If you break unjust laws while continuing to accept the government as a protector of your rights, you are maintaining a contradiction. Either the government is legitimate, or it isn't. Either you call 911 when your house is burglarized, sue when a company commits fraud, and put a Support Our Troops sticker on your car - or you reject the government as fundamentally oppressive and go underground. There is no middle ground.

I hope this answers the last two of your quotes.

[DavidOdden]

So let's apply this to America today.  Should citizens dutifully inform government of all of their transactions off books, in the black market etc.? Will revealing all their hidden income to the IRS save them trouble in the long run?

I don't know, though I doubt it. I think this is an important issue, and would only support pointed compliance if there is a point.

[Tom Robinson]

Whether or not the overall oppression has increased is irrelevant. The question is whether the government has increasingly violated your rights. If it today decided to make it illegal for Tom Robinson to buy anything, you would be morally correct to disregard the law and become a fugitive - even if at the same time it enacted free-market reforms for the rest of society. That is why it is important that we stick to talking about modern times in the United States.

You say we should stick to “modern times,” but the sense of your paragraph above is that the relevant factor is not “modern times” or “times long ago,” but the life of the individual citizen. As it happens, the government has grown bigger and far more intrusive in my lifetime, and I have less liberty than I did ten years ago. No, it has not forbidden me to buy anything, but my taxes are higher and my ability to earn is lower due to government coercion. As for the word “fugitive,” let me point out that there are millions of Americans, probably some living in your own neighborhood, that are conscious, willing violators of U.S. laws -- but they are not, for the most part, "fugitives."

In other words, your argument is that if a society is civilized and rights-respecting, breaking the unjust laws will not only not undermine those qualities, it will actually improve them. My question is this: When has the government ever responded to law-breakings by removing the laws that are being broken?

You’re making this too easy. Google what Constitutional Amendment was repealed on December 5, 1933.

The essential quality of a civilized and rights-respecting society is that you do NOT have the streets filled with crowds glorifying and "cheering" on law-breakers.

Tell that to the Boston Tea Party. Tell that to the mobs that overthrew and executed the communist butcher Nicolae CeauSescu. In both cases, there was far more liberty as a result of your hated crowds cheering on “law-breakers.”

All disagreements are solved by persuasion.

Do you really believe that the U.S. government solves all disagreements by persuasion?

If you break any laws, you have fundamentally declared war on the government; you have told them that you no longer accept it as a legitimate protector of rights.

Is that what you think Martha Stewart did? By breaking a ridiculous “insider trading” law, did Martha Stewart declare war on the United States government? To quote John Stossel, “Give me a break.”

You are sacrificing nothing and it is not against your interests. "Playing by the rules" of civilized society is very much in your interests, because it maintains your integrity: If you break unjust laws while continuing to accept the government as a protector of your rights, you are maintaining a contradiction. Either the government is legitimate, or it isn't.

I refuse to accept your dichotomy, which is what Ayn Rand would disparagingly call a package deal. I can fully maintain my moral integrity by breaking a stupid, coercive, statist law, while at the same time calling for the local police when someone is firing a gun outside my window -- especially when there is no other legally allowable peace enforcer in the neighborhood. Accepting one (not being shot by a thug) does not imply acceptance of the other (giving up to politicians an obscene portion of my income). This is what intellectual precision is all about: making subtle distinctions.

Either the government is legitimate, or it isn't. Either you call 911 when your house is burglarized, sue when a company commits fraud, and put a Support Our Troops sticker on your car - or you reject the government as fundamentally oppressive and go underground. There is no middle ground.

Once again you assert without evidence or argument. Can’t some government laws be legitimate and others not? Under the government of the Soviet Union, couldn’t a woman who objected to the theft of her food ration coupons call for official police help without endorsing the entire communist system?

[EC]

Where would you fish for whales in Ohio anyway?

SeaWorld!

[EC]

I agree with Tom Robinson's posts and I think I was the spark to these law debates by saying I don't pay taxes and that *is* a moral choice, and the disregarding of un-objective laws, such as sagging your pants. I pat myself on the back.

[JMeganSnow]

Thank you for clarifying (pointing out my interpretative error).  I apologize for misconstruing your position.

I agree with you that mass disobedience is immoral if the rights of others are violated (I hope everyone here agrees with that one too!).

No problem; you let me use "smooged" on the forum so I'm happy. It was a minor issue anyway; I'm nitpicky.

[Oakes]

You say we should stick to “modern times,” but the sense of your paragraph above is that the relevant factor is not “modern times” or “times long ago,” but the life of the individual citizen. As it happens, the government has grown bigger and far more intrusive in my lifetime, and I have less liberty than I did ten years ago.

Correct, but I was responding to what you brought up about your family - they may have had every moral right to break the laws then, but the fact that the overall size of the government has increased since then does not mean that you individually have the moral right to violate laws today.

You’re making this too easy. Google what Constitutional Amendment was repealed on December 5, 1933.

This is a good point, although in a case like Prohibition where dissent was rampant, I don't think violating the law was needed to change them.

Tell that to the Boston Tea Party. Tell that to the mobs that overthrew and executed the communist butcher Nicolae CeauSescu. In both cases, there was far more liberty as a result of your hated crowds cheering on “law-breakers.”

The Boston Tea Party was a protest of taxation without representation - it was perfectly legitimate to break British laws when we had no freedom to change them any other way. As for executing a communist butcher - you are not morally obligated to follow the laws of a non-free government.

Do you really believe that the U.S. government solves all disagreements by persuasion?

The United States is a fundamentally-free nation. If we cannot agree on that much, we will get nowhere here.

Is that what you think Martha Stewart did? By breaking a ridiculous “insider trading” law, did Martha Stewart declare war on the United States government? To quote John Stossel, “Give me a break.”

We've already gone over Martha in this thread - nobody is obligated to follow laws that cannot be followed.

Note: Don't try to compare serious crimes with comparatively trivial ones. The severity of your crime is the measure of your declaration of war on the government.

Accepting one (not being shot by a thug) does not imply acceptance of the other (giving up to politicians an obscene portion of my income). This is what intellectual precision is all about: making subtle distinctions.

I don't suggest that you need to accept giving an obscene portion of your income to politicians - you have every right to dissent. The question is by what means should you dissent, and the answer is entirely dependent on the way you view the government. The difference between picking and choosing a few laws to break, and full-scale violent revolution, is only one of degree.

Once again you assert without evidence or argument. Can’t some government laws be legitimate and others not? Under the government of the Soviet Union, couldn’t a woman who objected to the theft of her food ration coupons call for official police help without endorsing the entire communist system?

What's so absurd about your analogy is that it both warps the principle and destroys the context in which it resides. The context is not a slave state, it is a free state. And the principle does not state that objecting to unjust laws is wrong - of course some laws can be legitimate and others not - rather the principle states that breaking unjust laws is wrong. In a slave state, you may accept police help while breaking unjust laws, but as long as you consider the government free, accepting police help while breaking unjust laws is a contradiction.

[Tom Robinson]

Correct, but I was responding to what you brought up about your family - they may have had every moral right to break the laws then, but the fact that the overall size of the government has increased since then does not mean that you individually have the moral right to violate laws today.

By what logic do you maintain that my grandfather had a right to evade coercive laws but I don't? If disobedience to bad laws was justifiable in 1920, it is no less justifiable today.

This is a good point, although in a case like Prohibition where dissent was rampant, I don't think violating the law was needed to change them.

Read any history of Prohibition. Amendment 18 was repealed precisely because criminalizing alcohol was a colossal failure. People in every walk of life broke the law, and the feds were helpless to stop the flow of booze. If people had meekly followed the law, there would have been no pressure (especially from police officers and prosecutors) to repeal it.

The Boston Tea Party was a protest of taxation without representation - it was perfectly legitimate to break British laws when we had no freedom to change them any other way. As for executing a communist butcher - you are not morally obligated to follow the laws of a non-free government.

This is where we need some clarification. Why does the fact that we have a representative government oblige me to comply with coercive legislation? If absolute monarchs can be in moral error, so can 51% of those who cast ballots in an election. If by the logic of Rand’s essay, “Man’s Rights,” I have a right to my body and to the property I have peacefully acquired, then that right exists regardless of the preferences of the voting majority. I never signed any document surrendering my rights to the will of the people.

We've already gone over Martha in this thread - nobody is obligated to follow laws that cannot be followed.

Great. Then why can’t we also say, nobody is obligated to follow laws that are immoral?

Note: Don't try to compare serious crimes with comparatively trivial ones. The severity of your crime is the measure of your declaration of war on the government.

I have a friend who is in his 40s and has never filed an income tax return. Now you can call this declaring war on the government. My friend just calls it not paying taxes.

I don't suggest that you need to accept giving an obscene portion of your income to politicians - you have every right to dissent. The question is by what means should you dissent, and the answer is entirely dependent on the way you view the government. The difference between picking and choosing a few laws to break, and full-scale violent revolution, is only one of degree.

If I have an opportunity to resist successfully a coercive law, then I have accomplished two things: 1) I have acted in accordance with my own wishes, and 2) I have prevented the government from doing something immoral. To paraphrase Patrick Henry, “If this be violent revolution, make the most of it.”

What's so absurd about your analogy is that it both warps the principle and destroys the context in which it resides. The context is not a slave state, it is a free state.

Well, if it is a free state, then the coercive laws it imposes on its citizens must surely be accidents. And, of course, anyone who is proud of living in a free state shouldn’t mind if their government is forced to act in a more non-coercive manner.

And the principle does not state that objecting to unjust laws is wrong - of course some laws can be legitimate and others not - rather the principle states that breaking unjust laws is wrong.

If a law is unjust, how can there be justice in complying with it?

In a slave state, you may accept police help while breaking unjust laws, but as long as you consider the government free, accepting police help while breaking unjust laws is a contradiction.

I reject your package deal. I am not aware of any ethical principle that compels one to cooperate with a certain group of people at all times, both when their actions are moral and when they are immoral. As for whether I consider the government free. Well, it is -- except for those occasions when it is not. It would be a contradiction against justice not to break bad laws and not to use the only legal means of defense to stop criminals.