Trust in the Lord:
So then the tipping point for you is when it comes to freedoms and rights? Like if not everyone had the same rights, you'd have a tough time giving support to such a country if they decide to ignore the rights of the people, or denied them entitled freedoms? Or would it still be ok to remove rights and freedoms as long as you or some other group could go to the courts to deal with it?
More or less, yes. Rights and freedoms are far more important in my view than taxes. In particular, the ability change the system from within is crucial, and the lack of it is something that would warrant going outside the system. Issues of fundamental rights would be other issues, but I still think if there's a legal way to attempt change, that should be the main focus.
Tycho:
...if someone finds the constitution opposed to their beliefs about how government should work, how should they go about trying to change it?
Trust in the Lord:
I suppose the only way would to be join politics...
In that case, I'd say there's your answer of how you should work to change tax levels.
Trust in the Lord:
Me, I suppose I'd have to look at it on a case by case basis. However, I accept you should not follow a law that is wrong. I do accept that sometimes you need to do so within the law, but at the same time, when something is wrong, you stand in the way, and let people know it.
Are you saying no one should follow any law they disagree with? Because that seems to go too far for me. Especially on things like tax levels, which aren't really a moral issue, but something on which rational people can have legitimate disagreement.
Trust in the Lord:
But my real response to your question is...So the only people allowed to not follow the constitution is the government? How is that fair? :)
No, the government should follow the constitution as well. When they don't, people should pursue the issue as the constitution dictates, rather than just taking the law into their own hands. There is a defined process for dealing with politicians who overstep their power. The constitution doesn't say "people don't have to pay taxes if they don't want to."
Trust in the Lord:
However, plenty of people use methods of non violent forms of protest. Essentially, it recognizes the law is there, but that the law is unlawful in the way it is enforced.
Non-violent protest is fine, but a key part of non-violent protest is willingness to accept the penalty for breaking the law. Theft isn't non-violent protest, it's just theft. It's sounding like what you're proposing isn't "not paying your taxes, and spending time in jail to draw attention to the problems in the tax system" but rather "not paying your taxes and getting away with it" (correct me if I've misunderstood you on that). There's a big difference between the two. If the folks who did the boston tea party didn't throw the tea overboard, but instead just took it home and sold it out of their back door, that wouldn't have been a protest, it would have been theft. As it was, it was destruction of private property, but at least they didn't make any personal profit off of it.
Put it this way, do you think people who murder someone are engaging in protest against anti-murder laws that they fell are unfair, or do you think they're just ignoring the murder laws and hoping they don't get caught? Because what you're proposing sounds more like the latter to me than the former. Again, if you're willing to do the jail time for breaking the law, and fully expect to get caught, then I could see it as a protest. But if you're hoping that you just don't get caught, then I don't see it as a protest, but just the act of a scofflaw.
Trust in the Lord:
Not legal relativism. I'm talking about people having different views on what is right and wrong.
Yes, definitely people have different views about what's right and wrong. But if we all just make up our own minds about it, then we don't really have a legal system. Part of the social contract in a democracy is that you sometimes have to go along with decisions you disagree with when you're in the minority. It's not a very pleasant thing, but it's necessary to make democracy work. Now, because no one likes to not get their way, I think the law should, as much as possible, allow people to make their own decisions, and only limit their options when they start impinging on other people's ability to make decisions. But thing like taxes and spending sort of necessarily require people to accept the overall decision and go along with it even when they disagree.
Trust in the Lord:
For example, are you saying it's wrong to protest in this manner? Or are you saying it is unlawful to protest in this way. If unlawful, it doesn't need to be wrong, and as such, I think it reasonable that we should support others to be able to protest.
If by "this manner" you mean not paying your taxes and hoping you don't get caught, then I would say yes, it's both wrong and illegal. If you fully intend to get caught, and pay the penalty that comes with getting caught, in order to draw attention to the problems in the system and change peoples minds, then I could see it as an acceptable (though still illegal, obviously) form of protest. I'm a bit confused when you say we should "support others to be able to protest" in this way. Do you mean it should be legal? Or that we should view it as morally acceptable? Or that we should say "good job!"? Or something else?
Tycho:
If you give everyone a legal option of not paying any taxes, I promise you, next to no one will pay any. That some people are avoiding their taxes is true, that others are upset about this is also true, mostly because they feel they don't have a legal option for doing the same.
Trust in the Lord:
That is simply untrue. There are people who are successful in not paying taxes, and still millions pay up.
Go back and read what I said. Does everyone have a legal option of not paying any taxes? If not, then what you say doesn't really apply to my statement. I'm saying that if you say "everyone, if there's anything you don't like about the way the government spends it's money, you can simply not pay taxes as a 'protest' and nothing bad will happen to you" then essentially no one will pay taxes. As I pointed out, yes, there are people who avoid paying taxes, and while people still 'pay up' as you say, I'd hardly say they're happy with those who avoid their taxes (especially when they use illegal or questionably-legal methods to do so).
Trust in the Lord:
I appreciate you have a viewpoint that is different than mine.
Which part are you referring to in particular? You sort of covered a lot of statements in that quote, so I'm not sure which part you see as the problematic.