At the point at which someone identifies with and supports blatantly illegal activities carried out by another, they become an advocate for those actions. Unwillingness to act on those convictions is, in my view, hypocritical.
Or perhaps the person doesn't think it would be smart to act on those convictions at this certain point in time.
Places such as circa-2005 New Orleans? Where the police simply left, joined the looters, or stole YOUR defense weapon at gunpoint?
They didn't steal, it is the law. And since it is the law you have to go through all the red tape to get it back. And you have to wait until the law is changed before you can actually get back your personal property. Until then you are just out of luck and defenseless, but hey, the law is the law. Actually defending yourself against an unjust law, only crazy people do that.
He had the voluntary choice to not buy the property. Thus your argument is rendered moot.
Thats not really much of a choice. It's either, buy a house and pay unjust taxes, or, live in the streets. Yeah, real fine choices you have there.
"Damn you Rosa Parks."
Another less than brilliant non sequitor argument.
The man entered into the purchase agreement and all of its stipulations freely. All property owners are subject to property taxes -- not just property owners who are black or latino.
Attempting to equate this with discrimanatory laws passed for the sole reason of keeping one individual, or group of individuals, from obtaining the same rights in society is a non starter.
So did Rosa Parks, and all colored people. They had the choice not to get on the bus or choose to sit in the back, just like he had the choice not to buy the house.
So let me ask, do you think it was ok for people to still drink during prohibition?
If you want to stay here, be prepared to ante up, pardner.
Thats right, continue to pay your protrec... er, tax money good upstanding citizen.
She was arrested and then people saw that the law unjust and then it was changed.....see how that works.
Thats not how it worked, people rioted and physically fought it to get it changed. Thats how it worked.
I think someone once said:
"Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's"
Now if you think Ceasar is taking too much, then you need to work so that Ceasar takes less.
Thats not really the message.
Oh, as for Rosa Parks. She was willing to break the law and accept the consequences of doing so to demonstrate her resolve that the law in question was unConstitutional.
That is one tactic, but not a good one in my book. The .gov isn't going to change if you do not actually resist it. As long as you are still following the laws in the end it doesn't care.
When the "law is an ass", honoring "the law" for its own sake is repulsive to a thinking person.
Couldn't of said it better myself, mostly because I am not good at expressing myself,
She didn't refuse to leave her seat and shoot at the police coming to enforce the law.
And if she did I, and I was there, I would of been there cheering her on, if not helping. She would of had every right to do that.
