[SgtofMarines]

I have no need for your slack. Let me have it - so long as it's rational and has bearing on the subject at hand.

I did not dare anyone to "break" an unconstitutional law. I did point out that I personally would not consider any such arguments unless the claimant had had already done so. I indicated that I would accept his offer, provided that I felt he was serious in this regard. At this point in time, I do not. That may change in the future.

[sauropod]

A serious question. In the People's Republic of Maryland, we have a law that says one must "buckle up." It is a State law.

I view it as unconstitutional as it is an infringement on my liberty. I drive all the time w/o a seatbelt. A trivial example, but bear with me.

Similar arguments can be made about other nanny state rules and regulations. I choose to break some of those as well.

But there are consequences for breaking such laws. As a free man I accept the consequences. I expect to be able to argue the case in court. Usually the court does not allow you to do such a thing (overloaded docs).

I choose to live as a free man. Freedom scares people.

At what point does one do more than passively resist the Nanny State? What is the "tipping point?"

And, welcome to FR.