> You certainly are conflating. Opposing the existence of a law and breaking a law are two different things, and your supposedly simple question is combining then in order to make the misleading argument that a person who breaks a law is actually punished for opposing the existence of a law.
No. The point is that the ends do not justify the means. I support the vast majority of the current law's agenda - but I believe the means of how it is carried out is wrong. Most people have never thought about this - I'm asking you to think about it.
> A person in a democratic society has a right to determine the laws they are legally subject to, but their mechanism for doing that is not their choice of whether to comply with it or not.
I'm not speaking about legality or illegality here. Above I wrote: When you pass a tax on something, you need to back it credibly. Now, it's easy to wash your hands of it by saying, "It's the law, and if you break the law, there are penalties."
But ends do not, in my opinion, justify means. Others can disagree - that's why we're discussing. But most people can't even admit that the means that are being used are pretty horrific. If someone says, "Yes, I think it is horrible that someone who refuses to subsidize broadband internet in a rural area is imprisoned, but it's necessary anyways so I support it", then I respect that person. I disagree, but I respect it. But the man that refuses that is refusing to see the way things currently are.
This truth is a bit ugly, I think. I don't particularly like it.
> If you are tried for a crime, you are not asked whether you agree with the law or not.
Again, I'm not speaking about legality or illegality here. Yes, breaking the law is always illegal, by definition. This is not the discussion.
But this really isn't academic. The broadband internet in rural areas is very illustrative, but let's take another example, this time from the United States. Social Security Tax - it's to help support older and disabled people. This is a good end goal - supporting older and disabled people.
But if someone doesn't give their income up to pay this tax to support this cause, they go to jail. Yes, not paying this tax is against the law, therefore it is illegal, therefore you can be punished under the law for breaking this law. That's obvious.
But is it right? I'm going to say, categorically - no. You could disagree. You could say, "The ends justify the means. We need to lock people in jail who refuse to help the elderly and disabled." But you can't say, "That's dishonest, that's not what's happening." Because that's precisely what's happening.
I'm aware it's the law. That does not change whether the law is right or wrong. I'm in favor of supporting the elderly and disabled. I personally have done so in my life. I'm not in favor of jailing or otherwise hurting someone who refuses to. Does it make sense that way? We're not talking about legality, we're talking about ends and means. You need to ask yourself what you're willing to incarcerate or hurt other human beings for not complying with, and that needs to be factored into the law.
There are situations that would warrant arresting, incarcerating, hurting, or killing another human being. The question, "Are you willing to incarcerate, harm, or kill someone for refusing to subsidize broadband internet in a rural area?" is a fair question, because a law mandating that you subsidize broadband internet or suffer a penalty of incarceration or harm does precisely that.