I'm with Markus on this one. Obeying laws, including the ones you disagree with and believe you can get away with breaking, is a moral duty, not just a cost-benefit analysis.

Yes, there are situations where civil disobedience is appropriate. Fighting foreign occupation or racial segregation surely rises to that level. Fighting the big, bad Monorail probably does not.

Sorry Shark, I'm with Markus too. However the law was passed, you've got to go with it. You can work to change the mechanisms that allowed that law to pass, but you've got to live with whatever was legally wrought until you can legally undo it. I'm especially upset that you complain about a tax that was voter-approved. You choose not to vote, then you are choosing to approve of the outcome.

The right way to do it is to work to legally right a wrong. For example, here in Oregon, the legislature passed a statewide tax hike. Anti-tax advocates responded by rounding up signatures for a referendum to repeal it. And appear to have easily found enough votes to get it on the ballot. That's the right response.

Let's see...your local politicos decide to build a monorail, and to fund it by taxing people who live outside the monorail service area and use cars. Have I got that right?

So some of the potential taxees avoid the tax by registering their cars elsewhere. Sounds okay to me.

This has nothing to do with civil disobedience (which requires accepting the punishment), or obedience to law (because it's not law if it does not apply to everyone). A tax of this kind is not a function of law - it is simple a case of arbitrary authority. If I get taxed for a "service" that does not even pretend to give me the chance to use it, and isn't imposed on the people who will actually use the service, why should I pay the tax?

Politicians have got the idea that they can focus on one segment of the population to fund their pet schemes, without having to link up the taxpayers with the benefit. That way, they divide taxpayers against each other, and since the people paying the tax are in a minority, well, they just lose.

Sorry folks - if you want people to take taxes seriously, you have to make the tax generally applicable. There has to be a sense of fairness involved. This monorail tax does not seem to be fair - so you get evasion. It's the American way.

Sorry. Chalk me up as another vote for following the law. It's the prosecutor in me.

Are the evaders actually breaking the law, or are they arranging their affairs so they don't owe the tax?

I note that the supremes have decided that the latter is quite legal, that there is no obligation to behave otherwise.

WRT the respect for "the law", I've noticed that that bad law is one of the best ways to teach people to not respect the law.

One distinguishing characteristic of "bad law" is that most people obey it only from fear of prosecution. Good law basically codifies how most people ordinarily behave, law or no law.

I personalize it a bit. I ask myself "would I shoot my mother if she broke this law?" If the answer is no, it's a bad law. If the answer is yes, it's a good law.

So, how many of you folk are willing to shoot your mothers over the monorail tax?

Is our prosecutor friend really willing to shoot his mother over each and every law put out by every legislative body?

The "kill my mother" rule is ridiculous. I don't kill my mother if she runs a red light. There should continue to be laws against running red lights. Disagree?

Under our republican system, there are legislative and judicial remedies for bad laws.

There are also, in fact if not law, allowances for hypocrisy: I don't use illegal drugs anymore, not because they are illegal, for the most part, but rather because I don't like their effects.

I'm also willing to embrace a measure of relativism and say that civil disobedience is acceptable in some situations. I don't feel that breaking the law in order to avoid contributing to a monorail program that I think is stupid meets that criteria, and I feel particularly confident about such a judgement given the fact there was a plecibate on the issue, given the fact that the tax is likely to fund non-monorail uses as well, and, I admit, given the fact that I like the idea of mass transit and I am intelligent and educated enough to understand why mass transit programs need public subsidies in order to exist in a so-called "free market."

Not living in Seattle, I'm not familiar with the details of the project, or its funding. But saying that the monorail project "taxes people who live outside the service area" what does this mean? A public good is something that benefits the general public -- Central Park in Manhattan benefits all Manhattanites, not just the people who actually go there. Obviously public goods like mass transit systems are of foremost benefit to their users -- hence, user fees -- but they also benefit non-users, which is why at least in principle a tax on citizens irrespective of their use is justificed. (Particularly, once again, if the people VOTED FOR IT, and have DECLINED TO VOTE to CHANGE THEIR MINDS since.)

> The "kill my mother" rule is ridiculous. I don't kill my mother if she runs a red light. There should continue to be laws against running red lights. Disagree?

Actually, the "kill my mother" rule reflects reality.

Law enforcement requires the imposition of potentially deadly force so the decision to have a law is the decision to kill someone.

If you don't think that anyone should be killed over a particular thing, don't make said thing illegal.

WRT running red lights, I am willing to kill a few people because the alternative is worse.

Do you care to say the same for Seattle's monorail?

Note that the number for the red light law is small because it's a codification of common behavior. Feel free to point out how many people volunteered their money for the monorail without regard for whether others "contributed".

I think all of you are missing the point. Most likely 99% of Seattlites will never ride the monorail so why should they have to pay for it?
Of course the 1% that ride it will have to pay a $100 fare so why don't these fanatics put their money where their mouth is?
The truth is the monorail is about as economically feasible as a trip to the moon and about as useful at eliminating congestion.
During a sparsely attended election a small cadre of monorail supporters hoodwinked around 15% of the Seattle populace by preying on their infantile fantasies of playing with toy trains and criminally underestimating the costs, to squeek through a victory.
When the rest of the populace, particularly those with two or more cars, find themselves paying $500, $600, $700 or more they will blow their stacks.

The reason that we need taxes, and the reason I will not donate extra money for the monorail volutarily, but would vote for a tax to fund it, is in order to fight "freeloading" -- people using the service for nothing.