https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1qd7inh/when_does_the_state_have_authority_to_use_force/
This is inspired by recent events but it's intended to be more broad spectrum.
Let's talk about Malheur Wildlife Refuge. Back in 2016 a guy didn't want to pay about a million dollars in taxes that he hadn't paid for about 20 years. So logically he occupied a federal government building and a bunch of people joined him and a bunch of supportive people back home mailed in dildos. The fucking glowies thought "this wasn't nice" and tried to shut down the party and murdered a guy.
Think about it. Some guy doesn't want to pay his taxes, not even a victimless crime, just victimless, no crime, and now you, a random third party, gets murdered just cause you want to show the cops the cool gun you have? Bullshit!
Let's jump to another place and time. You're Joe Steel and you've been democratically elected to collectivize farms. You tell the kulaks to turn in their grain and animals. They don't. So you go to collect their grain and they hide it in their barns. They lock you out. So you break the lock, but they try to stop you. So you get a court order, and they burn the grain. At what point does it just make sense to [fedpost]?
The obvious answer is that the government shouldn't use force when they're doing something you don't like (trying to get me to pay taxes), and should use force when they're doing something you do like (going door to door to arrest Jan 6th rioters months after the fact). But what if you're wrong, because I'm always right?
If I can commit armed robbery with no repercussions by simply threatening to [fedpost], then why wouldn't everyone do it all the time? If the brooks brothers can riot whenever they feel like it, why bother having elections?