For me it is not a question of transgressing any particular law or edict. It is a matter of conscience and principle, i.e. an essential truth upon which other truths are logically based. This essential truth of self-ownership is unequivocal and inescapable. Each individual alone controls, and is responsible for, the energy that animates their being. This principle has motivated my own complete and explicit rejection and withdrawal of all sanction and support for the concept of "government" in any form, regardless of the stated purpose or whether it is global, national, state, or local. My position is based upon the realization of the paradox of the political means, i.e. might can make right, by definition this position is inherently illogical, contradictory and immoral, and therefore must ever prove to be utterly ineffectual as a method for advancing the evolution of peaceful relations among the aggregate of society. Compulsion necessarily precludes morality and at best produces only a mixture of hypocrisy and rebellion. I find the ratio of the former to the latter to be a reasonably accurate indication of the overall intellectual integrity of the individual. If an individual is willing to consistently and repeatedly compromise their principles, can they truly claim to have any? Further, "government" being the product or offspring of "politics", i.e., the art of compromise, can it ever be construed as principled?
This is the problem I have with the concept "government", it is self-evidently unprincipled.
Which is worse the desire to command or the will to obey?
Just Dave - Peace