‘Resisting’ Is Defined as Violence. Not the ‘Taking’

Newsweek has put together a “Tax Attacks” propaganda piece. The gist of this piece is that Joseph Stack was one of many violent protesters who “believed taxes are unjustified,” and thus reacted with violent actions. Of course, anyone who believes that taxes are unjustified necessarily gets lumped in with all of the mad bombers, shooters, and so-called right-wing extremists from America’s past. From Newsweek:

Though Stack’s actions were extreme, the United States has seen a quiet but violent antitaxation movement grow since the middle of the 20th century. Having little in common with the Revolutionary War-era Boston Tea Partiers, these protesters believe taxes are unjustified, with or without representation, and they may have ties to other antigovernment groups, including the militia movement, the Sovereign Citizen movement, and white-supremacist groups. Mark Pitcavage, a historian of extreme-right-wing movements and the director of investigative research at the Anti-Defamation League, and the Southern Poverty Law Center have researched the history of violent attacks carried out by members of the tax-protest movement.

Look at the hyperlink in the story (bold is my emphasis): http://photo.newsweek.com/2010/recent-history-of-anti-tax-violence-in-the-us/tax-attacks.html. Isn’t it somewhat twisted that taxation — the act of taking personal property and earnings by force, under the threat of violence, further theft, life destruction, and/or going to the hoosegow — is considered to be the law-abiding action, while the act of resisting the threats of theft and personal destruction is considered to be the “violence?” How many people — outside of radical libertarians and other anti-staters — will ever see what should be so completely obvious to anyone who can understand simple definitions?

Here is a print of our violent, anti-tax ancestors protesting the Stamp Act in 1765.