Quote:

thedoctor said:
They stopped paying taxes because they didn't want to pay taxes. Taxes that were to pay for a war fought to protect them. That protest led to rebellion. So if you approve of the protest of the colonists in the late 1700's which was definetly more violent as it involved vandalism, then you'd also have to approve of the protest of the Australian couple who are using a non-violent form of protest. Not their politics, but their use of non-violent protest. Otherwise, you're just splitting hairs due to your unacceptance of their reason for the protest.



There's no minutia here.

There's a difference between revolution and civil protest. Just because I agreed with the American Revolution, that doesn't mean that I saw its prelude as as just protest. Effigy's and rioting crowds are one thing. Total lack of adherence to the state's governship is quite another.