Everyone has been "betrayed by both major political parties", but not badly enough, apparently, for them to do something about it. Most voters at the last election who shunned the Coalition gave their preferences to Labor. There are three perfectly respectable and democratic minor parties to vote for - One Nation, Liberal Democrats, and United Australia Party. But no. Australians don't have the guts to give them a go; they are afraid of being called names by the Lunatic Left.

There should be no sympathy for Australians: they get the governments they deserve every three years.

"One Nation, Liberal Democrats, and United Australia Party. But no. Australians don't have the guts to give them a go; they are afraid of being called names by the Lunatic Left."

"There should be no sympathy for Australians: they get the governments they deserve every three years"

Indeed, but then I vote Green and have for 20 years.

The issue I have is we don't really have a left, lunatic or otherwise, so the fascist parties are labeled that by anyone left of them which is about 80% of Australia. (Fascist as in blame some minority or other for their own failing and want them persecuted somehow; an example, targeting Asians was in favor with Pauline at one time, now people that want a livable environment are targeted)

The Greens are what I'd call slightly left of center, they are about the only party occupying left of center, so it's slim pickings but my hope is a an left party will arise if people start to move Green and we can shift the Overton Window to allow true debate, though I am not seeing much indication of that (I am 58)

The freedom movement? Freedom from what? Democracy, public health orders? Don't like it here or complying with public health orders during a killer pandemic? Then feel free to go anywhere else on earth where your lunacy is shared!
Alan B.

What I saw on February 20, 2021 were hundreds, not
thousands, of protesters who marched to the Shrine
of Rememberance in Melbourne and ended up being corralled
by police at Fawkner Park where dozens were arrested.

These people appeared like brainwahsed extremists calling
themselves "sovereign citizens," willing to launch
government take-overs - violent or otherwise. They were
hurling abuse at police on the front lines. Total nutters
who'd succumbed to misinformation and conspiracy theories.

The same nutters who set fire to our pld Parliament House
in Canberra in December. Amid their calls to end the
vaccine mandates were calls for MPs to be hanged.

A "freedom" movement?

Hardly.

And gaining momentum in this country?

Hardly.

They desperately should be given mental help. They
desperately need it. And most Australians would not support
anything as radical as these unfortunate people. I feel
sorry for our police officers in the front-line who have
to deal with these people. Jail them for their own protection
until they can recover and come back into the real world in
which most of us reside.

What Foxy says. And mostly disagree with a green valley guy, but, would give my life to defend his right to say it/hold such political opinion.
Alan B.

There’d only be one more corrupt rung on the ladder lower than a politician, that’d be an outboard motor agent.

Don’t vote.

Why does the Australian freedom movement always take such unprincipled approaches, at the wrong places and times?

Freedom is not about the ability to hurt or infect others - freedom is about the ability to have nothing to do with them, good or bad.

Democracy is an internal mechanism of settling disputes within a group of people who agreed to be together, presumably because they had some common goals and decided to try and achieve them together.

Forcing majority rule over an arbitrary cohort (such as all the humans who happen to live in a given continent) which never in the first place willingly agreed to have anything to do with each other, is not a democracy but a tyrannical farce.

Forming political parties is playing the game of democracy of others you never wanted to play with.

The so-called "freedom movement" failed and will continue to fail because they still want to be "Australians", they still want to benefit from what the Australian society and their state has to offer, they are unwilling to sacrifice its comforts but want to be exempt from its restrictions when they do not suit them.

For as long as I can remember both left-wing and right-wing protest march organisers have tried to claim that their protests attracted more than the police or media estimates. It is hard to estimate crowd sizes precisely, but it is usually organisers that are wrong.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-26/coronacheck-melbourne-covid-protest-crowd-size/100650146

It doesn't matter how many people attend protests, demonstrations, riots, they are all totally useless - a waste of time, and an bloody nuisance to people trying to go about their business.

What Yuyutsu says.
Alan B.

The 'freedom movement' was a confection of Koch Network think tanks, via a website in Germany promoted by the same Network e.g. locally Jo Nova et al., why?

Disrupting centrist governments and liberal democracy for media content or agitprop, but more important is the demonisation of science and dismissive attitudes to sensible regulation; Covid science denial was the same modus operandi as climate science denial.

According to DeSmog UK (10 Aug '20):

'How the UK's Climate Science Deniers Turned Their Attention to COVID-19. The coronavirus crisis quickly divided the population between those putting their trust in public health experts and others quick to question the science.'

From the same source, according to Stephan Lewandowsky, a professor of cognitive science University of Bristol, in the UK all the usual suspects and grifters of the architecture of influence of the right promoting Covid science denial or scepticism:

'...you have the inevitability of a virus which is the same as the inevitability of the physics. And opposing that you have politics which motivates some people to deny the inevitables and instead resort to bizarre claims.”

Dear Andras Smith,

Indeed, what a waste: rather than aiming at the monster's head and repudiating the very [unscientific] notion that it is OK for some people to order others around under threat of violence, this movement used all their energy to pick a petty fight against virus-response - wrong time, wrong place!

The problem with public health is not the science, but rather how "public" is defined - what is it which allows a certain group of people to represent themselves as "the public". Should the "freedom movement" been able to choose their own society of like-minded people so that they were "the public" rather than the current regime, I am pretty convinced that their practical response to the virus would have then been at least as scientific.

Yuyutsu

Re your top post above.

I’m confused. At the one and the same time you condemn Democracy and political parties, followed one paragraph down, by lauding the State?

How is it possible to have a State with it’s inevitable bureaucracy and not have an oversight system above it in control, in your view?

Dear Dan,

I was not lauding the state.

I have stated time and again that states AS THEY PRESENTLY STAND are rogue illegitimate violent-based organisations. This is because they force themselves and their laws on innocent people who never freely agreed to have anything to do with them.

On the other hand, there would be nothing principally wrong about having states so long as membership in them was voluntary, so long as people could choose whether or not to belong to a given state (and if not, to possibly create an alternative state of their own with other like-minded people).

I have not condemned democracy either: democracy is a valid management system within a state, so if a state is legitimate then so is its democracy. What is not legitimate, is to subject someone to the majority-rule of an arbitrary cohort s/he never freely chose to associate themselves with.

What I have been critical of here, are people who wish to eat the cake and have it too, who are happy to enjoy the comforts and benefits of a state, but then complain when that state restricts them. There is no such thing as "sovereign-citizen": one is either sovereign or a citizen, one cannot enjoy both worlds, one should be able to choose, in fact one MUST choose.

Yuyutsu

The below appears to me to be where basically you stand on the issue.
But I find it an incongruous position for an Israeli

Sovereign citizen movement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement

Tell me I’m wrong if you wish.

Dear Dan,

I looked up your reference to the "Sovereign citizen movement" - this does not reflect my views.

States as they stand are immoral and illegitimate entities BECAUSE they are violent. This does not give us a license to be violent as well, nor to cheat and disturb others in any way!

If one is truly committed to keep away from and not cooperate with evil at all costs, and I admire any such person, then one should also completely avoid the state's money, the state's roads, the state's water and electricity grids, the state's ambulances and the state's police and court-system when being offended by others, etc.

And if forcibly dragged to the state's courts, argue not with them, say nothing, nor eat their prison's food or even drink their water, nor even sign any release-papers.

Anything less than that is hypocrisy!

Yuyutsu

Well, you are radical with that view, and it very much resembles the view of the Sovereign citizen movement.

The Sovereign citizen movement is the ideology, not a stand alone organisation. You might need to be careful you are not officially targeted.

These radical thinkers are becoming more conservative middle of the road, as the ideology seems to be gathering pace: The Trains were much a part of that group think.

People of all shades are walking away from State control which increasingly sidelines the population it should serve. Anarchism is popular to all shades of political think!

Yuyutsu: Did you read this part at the end?

'politics which motivates some people to deny the inevitables and instead resort to bizarre claims.'

Alan, What is freedom? People are looking for freedom from what, public health orders?
Don't like the public health orders here? Then feel free to go anywhere else…

Alan, we weren’t allowed to go anywhere else. Here in Melbourne we weren’t supposed to go 5km from our address.

I would have happily spent the last few years in Sweden. The results are in, and the figures are laid bare.

Sweden: No lockdowns ; No school closures ; No mask mandates.

Sweden had the lowest overall cumulative excess deaths in all countries analysed by the OECD during the pandemic era from March 2020 to June 2022.

‘No lockdown’ Sweden performed the best, not among the best, the best of all the OECD countries.

This is what Karl Popper referred to as black swan falsification.

The idea comes from how for a long time in Europe, people were inclined to say that all swans were white. They would attempt to justify that theory that all swans were white by showing us endless numbers of white swans. (This can be referred to as induction.) However, it doesn’t matter how many white swans you find, the theory that all swans are white can be debunked by producing one black swan, which occurred once European sailors started to explore Australia and came across them. (Popper calls this falsification, and it’s the basis of all good science.)

The theory that the lockdown strategies were good for our overall health was argued by many countries around the world that were trying to implement it. Most went pretty hard at it, and many tried to out-do the next in craziness and lunacy. But the theory that lockdowns are any good is easily falsified if you can just demonstrate one country which clearly benefits from not having them. Sweden is that black swan.

No lockdown Sweden, in fact, performed better by the parameter of excess deaths over the COVID era than any other OECD country.

https://youtu.be/Y2KWFBn5pLg

Dear Diver Dan,

«Well, you are radical with that view,»

I have my view - you may judge it as radical or anything, but rest assured that this is not how or why I form my views.

«and it very much resembles the view of the Sovereign citizen movement.»

Resembles, yes, for the superficial minded. Not my fault.

«The Sovereign citizen movement is the ideology, not a stand alone organisation. You might need to be careful you are not officially targeted.»

If you read my previous comment carefully enough, you can realise that I do not share their ideology.

If I am to be targeted for my independent views than so be it.

«These radical thinkers are becoming more conservative middle of the road»

I have never set out to be radical or conservative. I observe, I analyse, I consider, then I form my views, wherever they happen to fall on somebody else's game-board.

«The Trains were much a part of that group think.»

You lost me there - what Trains?

«People of all shades are walking away from State control which increasingly sidelines the population it should serve.»

Why "increasingly"? Did States ever care about ordinary people?
Sadly also, I cannot see more people today walking away from State control than in any previous era, probably the opposite.

«Anarchism is popular to all shades of political think!»

Ruling over others without their consent is wrong, it is a form a violence. Everyone hates it when others forcibly rule over them, so by the Golden Rule, is it right to do the same unto others? I just state what I observe, the obvious - does it make me an anarchist?

---

Dear Andras Smith,

«Yuyutsu: Did you read this part at the end?»

Yes I did - what about it?

«'politics which motivates some people to deny the inevitables and instead resort to bizarre claims.'»

Yes, nobody likes to acknowledge the sayings of their enemies and oppressors, even when they make sense, even when they are scientific - is this surprising?

Dear Foxy,

«... after which the Australian Cardinal's body will be brought
to Sydney for a funeral Mass at St. Mary's Cathedral
in Sydney. His remains will be buried in the crypt.»

These are just technical arrangements: you have not answered my question - Did Cardinal Pell agree to any such arrangements?
- Did he indicate in his will, or in any other document, even verbally, where he wants his remains to be buried?
- Would Cardinal Pell not be disgusted at still being called "the Australian Cardinal" after all that Australia did to him?

(sorry about the last post - wrong thread)

Foxy, you speak of seeing ‘hundreds’ of protesters on February 20, 2021, who marched to the Shrine in Melbourne.

I don’t think that date is correct. I don’t think there were any large protests in that month. But at various times in the COVID period, there were numerous protests, some big, some small, and some absolutely huge.

It was the November 20, 2021 protest that was the biggest. It was possibly the biggest gathering of people Melbourne has ever witnessed for any single event. The Age newspaper reported it as ‘more than 100,000’. Although many are still claiming, with photographic evidence, that it was more than 200,000 people.

There is a YouTube link there in the post, if anyone wants to try and count the numbers for themselves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB91GepJHxI (Hundreds of thousands march in Melbourne.)

But estimating crowds is a difficult task. The first Sunbury music festivals in the early 1970s hoped to be Australia’s answer to Woodstock. Definitely there were tens of thousands there, but the estimates varied greatly, from between 25,000 and 60,000.

There were some pretty big anti-Kennett rallies in the 1990s. I know because, as a union member, I attended some of them.

While there’s been some big numbers at various sporting or other events at the MCG, or Flemington Racecourse, or at Grand Prix events, the biggest crowd of any description I’ve ever previously heard of in Australia, was the Billy Graham Crusade at the Melbourne Cricket Ground in 1959, with estimates of over 130,000 people. Normally, the MCG might hold 100,000, but on that day, crowds were allowed to spill out onto the grass area itself.

So this freedom gathering on 20 November, 2021, which started at Parliament and then marched through to Flagstaff Gardens, even if it wasn’t 200,000 would only have to be 150,000 or more to easily make a claim to be the largest single gathering of people in the history of Australia.

Yuyutsu

Q. Do you consider the State to be worthy of the description of terrorist?

And if the answer is yes, then why is it not legitimate to form terrorist groups under any particular flag of ideology, to counter State violence?

EG the Trains.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/12/17/fuqc-d17.html

I pointed out to you, their similar views to your own IE; their objections to State force for control of State dictates.

Thus was my warning.

It is safe to say, all terrorist groups consider themselves justified to counter force with force..

Obviously you will jump to self defence against this accusation of mine, and claim exemption from the description on your pacifist tendencies.
But I remember a past post here, where you described your pacifist beliefs overarched your obligation to the State, by fraternising with the enemy by blowing kisses out of the window of a military vehicle of your withdrawing platoon.

This is not a criticism as such, but an example of opposition towards your own side, being the State military machine.

So what is and what isn’t legitimate in opposing State rule?

Diver dan,
It sounds to me as if you’re entering a discussion of Just War theory. When is violence justified against an enemy aggressor?

Certainly there has been evidence of political corruption and levels of abuse of power within our major parties and governments here in Australia. But sometimes we ascribe evil intent when it’s more the case of incompetence.

However, our present political systems are still workable, or somewhat orderly. They haven’t got so morally corrupt or vicious and violent against their own people that they’re in need of being overthrown.

Diver dan,
I don't want to be seen as supporting or sympathising with the Trains, however, in their eyes, they would likely have seen their action as a self-defence.

Though the evidence at present points to their actions being more based on a disturbed paranoia.

Dear Diver Dan,

«Q. Do you consider the State to be worthy of the description of terrorist?»

It did not previously occur to me because I do not normally think in terms of terrorism.

But perhaps so: a terrorist is someone who deliberately sows terror (fear) in the hearts of some target population.

States can and do produce terrible fear due to their ability to snatch you (i.e. your body) away at any time and from any place, throw you in jail and make your worst nightmares come true - but is this fear-creating deliberate? for some States it is, but as for Australia, I don't know.

«And if the answer is yes, then why is it not legitimate to form terrorist groups under any particular flag of ideology, to counter State violence?»

No. If a State can provoke you to become a terrorist yourself, then evil has won, then you are the biggest loser, having lost your own soul!

«EG the Trains.»

Oh, I thought you meant trains that roll on rails and do "Choo Choo"... I'm not familiar with that story.

«I pointed out to you, their similar views to your own IE; their objections to State force for control of State dictates.»

The similarities are superficial.

I cannot object to States using force just as I cannot object to sharks obtaining their nourishment by biting others, or to earthquakes, tsunamis and viruses, etc. How can I ask a shark not to bite? it's in their nature!

What I do instead, is to educate others about the spiritual dangers of associating oneself with, cooperating with or supporting States: a conscientious person who wants to grow, to improve their character and develop spiritually, should beware and try to abstain from associating with the bad company of States that do as above to others who never consented to such treatment.

«Thus was my warning.»

Thank you, but nothing bad can happen to anyone who does not deserve it. The State is very powerful indeed, but God is above all and nobody, not even the State, can defy His will!

[continued...]

[...continued]

«It is safe to say, all terrorist groups consider themselves justified to counter force with force..

Obviously you will jump to self defence against this accusation of mine, and claim exemption from the description on your pacifist tendencies.»

Why? since I am not a member of a terrorist group, I need no exemption!

«So what is and what isn’t legitimate in opposing State rule?»

Violence is not legitimate (except when God called you directly otherwise, but that is extremely rare and you probably need to be a prophet for having such a calling: if in doubt then you are not).

Non-violent resistance is legitimate.
Passive resistance is also the most effective.
Mahatma Gandhi perfected it and was thus very successful in liberating India.
Jesus too in his wisdom advised his disciples to turn the other cheek - a very effective method.
Education too, exposing the truth of what States stand for, is non-violent, thus legitimate.
And yes, blowing kisses to civilians of the State's enemy is a legitimate form of non-violent resistance, and is even more effective when you actually love and care for them.

Yuyutsu

So, your answer is to set a pacifist example towards State sponsored violence.
No surprises under that stone.

In view of your dislike of State control over its citizens, inclusive of yourself, are you a law abiding citizen?

Assuming the answer is yes, then how do you reconcile your obedience with a conscience opposed to many of its institutions and demands which clash with it?

For example, there are groups that align loosely under the banner of the Sovereign citizen movement, who refuse to follow laws such as registration and fine payment as a protest against State intrusion into what they consider are their citizen rights not to comply.

Would you classify their refusals as pacifist objections?

Dan S de Merengue

* Though the evidence at present points to their actions being more based on a disturbed paranoia*

I think the trains are the extreme example of Sovereign citizen ideology.

A conspiratorial mind set, starting out as an obsession, and often does, as you say, fall into blind paranoia, which classifies as psychosis; in the Trains case, group psychosis.

Then again, couldn’t wars between States fall under the same description of delusional, resorting to violent and extreme actions. Why then is the State so opposed to the same tactics of violent change in its own back yard

The Democratic system of change fails to deal with the multiple and diverse mindsets of its citizens. Democratic Governments need to get on board with the speed of change in its communities.

Democracy is intended as a hedge against the pitfalls of mass objection. It’s called voting.
When this mechanism for change is seen as inadequate to needs for change, objectors to the State Democratic system of change on offer, become disillusioned, and are faced with shrinking options.

Dear Diver Dan,

«In view of your dislike of State control over its citizens, inclusive of yourself, are you a law abiding citizen?»

Technically I am an Australian citizen who would be considered by others to be mostly law-abiding. This does not make me automatically committed to follow the state's laws.

Perhaps an example:
When I had COVID-19, the law required me to report my details and symptoms to the regime, which could subsequently use the information to impose on me horrific punishments like grabbing me from my home, forcibly if necessary, and incarcerating me in the hostile environment of a quarantine-hotel or hospital where I would not be able to observe my religious vows and where I would also be required by law to follow all the orders of the treating doctor, even if they conflicted with my religion and conscience, under threat of prison if I didn't.

Obviously I did not report my details as required by law, but since I understand the importance of the overall pandemic statistics (for reserving sufficient hospital and ICU beds, etc.), I instead asked a friend to call the health department from a public pay-phone and report my infection anonymously. I also isolated at home in accordance with the medical advice, because as much as I have no respect for the state's laws, I still do not want to infect others.

«Assuming the answer is yes, then how do you reconcile your obedience with a conscience opposed to many of its institutions and demands which clash with it?»

My personal policy is not to fight, argue and waste my resources over petty legal requirements and inconveniences: that's practical wisdom ("Render unto Caesar..."), not obedience, nor do I purposefully break laws like a juvenile for the sake of disobedience per se: I would only break laws when they significantly clash with my conscience and religious principles and when no other individuals are hurt.

«Would you classify their refusals as pacifist objections?»

I would have to look at them on a case-by-case basis.

Yuyutsu,
The COVID laws are not really a good example, as they were never really valid laws.

Very few people who were fined under COVID laws ever paid their fines. Mostly, they were withdrawn by the prosecutors, especially if anyone was willing to challenge them.

There a case of one guy went through the magistrates court and opted to have it heard in the county court. His defense was “I don’t care about the CHO directions”. THAT’S IT! And the case was withdrawn, as the court system doesn’t want to have to deal with the question of the COVID laws and their true validity.

Like every case I’ve ever heard about with regard to COVID laws, it’s the same, in Australia at least. The authorities eventually drop the charges whenever someone is willing to challenge them, as they have no real validity. Just as your actions describe, the state does not have any jurisdiction to micromanage our responses to a health concern.

Yuyutsu

This may be hurtful, but I’ll say it; People (Citizens) who deliberately break the laws of the State are anti-social. That’s you.

There are known ethnic and cultural groups in our communities, well known for importing obstinate attitudes precluding themselves from observing State laws.

A depressing book on this subject would arrive on your doorstep along with a users manual on Diazepam.

All tax dodgers qualify for the title of Sovereign citizen movement. Ex Prime Minister Turnbull qualified for the tag as a professional tax dodging expert, who made a living helping citizens (sic), dodge their legal obligations to the State.

Australia has a taxation department with its own branch of policing of the rules, but still that is not enough policing is it, when prominent members of society get off Scott free from law breaking.

So with prominent examples of disobedience and egregious behaviour from the top down , respecting the law, for the masses below them, easily falls into question, and from that point, the debacle of COVID lockdowns and the sway of draconian laws which followed, leads to a seating mass of discontent.

With the rise of terror groups, and the ever legitimising Sovereign state ideology becoming easier rather than harder to sympathise with, the crises in Australia appears to be disrespect for its laws.

I put this to you, if you disrespect the laws ( all laws) of the country in which you choose to live, then very quickly that Country turns into the rabble of the country many natural law breakers, ( now citizens) we’re happy to escape..

Resoect for the rule of law appears to need the help of a big boot, did that work, no.
Every citizen of this country has a self interest in maintains the integrity of the law by following its dictates, and not to feel there is a citizens right to cherry pick which laws to follow and which laws to ideologically not follow.

The situation in this country is looking bleak on this imperative front.

Dear Diver Dan,

I never dodged any tax because there is nothing immoral in paying taxes - only in benefiting from the taxes of others.

Also, unlike these "ethnic and cultural groups in our communities" which you mentioned (if indeed they exist), I do not demand any special privileges for myself (such as precluding myself from observing State laws) because as far as I am concerned, there is no need for you, nor do I expect you to follow them either.

If you are concerned about the success of your society, then you should first look at the sad fact that it forces people to be counted in it without even asking for their consent - thus it already started on the wrong foot. Since your society never respected individuals and their free choice, there is no need for anyone to respect your society and its laws. I nevertheless continue to respect you personally as one who was made in the image of God.

---

Dear Dan S de Meringue,

«The COVID laws are not really a good example, as they were never really valid laws.»

As if any other laws WERE valid?!

In retrospect, people can now doubt the validity of COVID laws even according to the State's own internal criteria, but at the time this doubt was not the common knowledge of ordinary Australians, thus people had no clue that these laws could be any different than all other laws - except that they came much closer to home.

Yusutsu, « As if any other laws WERE valid?! »

We do have some valid laws in Australia.

I’m glad we live in a country that’s not lawless. For example, we have the Crimes Act, and through this the authorities help provide peace and justice (though not perfectly, of course.)

An example of mixed justice was the famous case of Lindy Chamberlain, who was wrongly charged with murder of their own baby girl in 1980 through the NT Crimes Act. She was convicted on false evidence from so called scientific ‘experts’. But the chamberlains fought for justice, which they eventually received after 32 years, when the NT Coroner finally brought down the official finding in 2012 that it was a wild dingo that took Azaria.

Immediately outside the court following the ruling, Michael Chamberlain said, “I am here to tell you that you can get justice, even when you think that all is lost. But, truth must be on your side. I cannot emphasize strongly enough how sacred human life is and how important it is to pursue a just cause even it seems to be a mission impossible. If you know you are right, never give up on getting it right.”

Laws are never perfect. But the ‘freedom’ movement have demonstrated over recent times the importance of standing up against laws that are wrong. We know the COVID laws were invalid by the way most of the fines in Victoria and NSW have been dropped. In fact, all of them are being dismissed when people challenge them. Very few fines were ever paid.

To their credit, the freedom movement has shown the importance of the precept, “Good people break bad laws”. Truth was on their side.

We need a government that makes good laws, which helps make for a good society. But good people deliberately breaking bad laws was necessary over the last three years to help show the errors of what was a shameful era in the history of Australia, revealing the ineptness of our elected leaders, and their power-crazed authoritarian overreach.

Dear Dan S de Merengue,

We seem to be talking about two different things.

You are discussing the quality of specific laws, how to tell whether they are good or bad and what can be done about the bad ones.

Fair enough, but what I said is that all laws (good or bad) made by States as they presently stand, are invalid, have no moral basis, thus nobody is morally obliged to follow them. You (and me too) may still like them (or at least some of them), you may still find them beneficial and convenient, you may still want to follow them anyway, but nothing obliges you to do so.

This apparently distinguishes my views from the views of this "‘freedom’ movement" which accepts in principle the validity and authority of States, only wishing to correct this or that set of laws which seem to be unjust or inconvenient.