SoloPilot wrote:Refuse to go to court. Fight against them, don't let them take you.
You tell me, will they eventually give up and go home? If not, then at some point things will escalate to the threat (or use) of deadly force.
This is the government's ultimate power, and the one which backs up taxation.
I'm sorry, everyone, to harp on about this completely off-topic side argument here, but it does demonstrate SP's complete lack of understanding of how some societies work, without the need for recourse to guns and 'deadly force'.
If the police were sent to get me to court (unlikely in itself, I think: it would have to have become a major stand-off), they might, conceivably, belabour me with truncheons ('extendable batons' as they're now so politely called) or even use pepper spray, if I was resisting exceptionally fiercely, and then manhandle me into a car or van. Guns would never come into it.
If the police so much as turned up at my house with any firearms, to arrest me for a tax offence, there would be a huge national outcry, leaders and comment pieces in the newspapers, questions in Parliament, demands for the Home Secretary's resignation, and more.
In our democracy, we are governed -- and policed -- by consent.
The police would not and could not threaten, let alone use, 'deadly force' in such circumstances. And long may that remain the case.
If SoloPilot thinks a society in which the threat of deadly force is routine in civil matters is one to be proud of, that's up to him. I emphatically don't.