Let's put it this way. The difference between those who really are
protesting a law as unjust, and those who merely
disobey the law for their own personal benfit, it usually very clear.
Take the people who refused to file and pay income tax during the Vietnam war. Even if you don't agree with the reason why they didn't pay, one must admit that (1) they didn't claim the law doesn't require them to file. They agreed it did. (2) They didn't refuse to, say, pay alimony, or to drive according to the law; they only refused to obey this one law. (3) They didn't demand special lenient treatment, let alone claim they deserve immunity from prosecution, just because they are ideological protestors, as opposed to the
hoi polloi who cheat on their taxes for selfish reasons.
Take, on the other hand, the so-called "tax protestors" today--people like Hovind:
(1) First of all, they don't claim the law is
unjust; they base their entire philosophy on all sorts of hare-brained excuses why the law doesn't
really require them to pay taxes, because "the 16th amendment wasn't ratified", or "wages isn't income", or "white male Christian native-born free sovereigns don't have to obey federal laws", or whatever. That their interest isn't really in what the law says but simply in finding some excuse for not paying, can be seen from the fact that most of them move from guru to guru based solely what "untaxing" theory they think has the highest chance of "working".
(2) Most of them--usually using the "sovereign citizen" excuse or "Federal government has no authority outside D.C." excuse--refuse to obey
any law they don't feel like obeying; they refuse to get drivers' licenses, or business permits, etc. In addition, most of them are simply deadbeats who, their record show, simply don't pay
any debt they don't want to, public or private. The same forums (such as, say,
www.suijuris.net -- NOT RESPONSIBLE for any drinks spewed on keyboards by those visiting the link) which "explain" to people why they don't have to pay income tax also "explain" why they don't have to pay their alimony, mortgage, city taxes, credit card bills, or, in effect, any debt they don't feel like paying.
(3) When prosecuted, do they welcome the chance at publicity and to tell the judge in open court why they are disobeying an unjust law? No, of course not. They do everything in their power to get away with not paying taxes without being prosecuted. It is only AFTER whatever "magic word" theory or "sovereign citizen" nonsense that their guru told them to use fails, that they suddenly "discover" that they are martyrs for the cause and are being unjustlry prosecuted by an evil, evil government for "exposing the truth".
Almost invariably they ARE. If you are late on your taxes, or even if you deliverately cheat and are caught, in the vast majority of cases the IRS will be reasonable and allow you to, in effect, pay the back taxes (or a fine for cheating) and not go to jail. I am willing to bet significant amounts of money that Hoving, too, was originally given the option of taking such a "payment plan" and avoiding criminal prosecution. In Hovind's case, however, he made it quite clear that he would simply not pay no matter what.
I hate to point out the obvious, but "land of the free" doesn't mean "nobody ever goes to jail", or it would simply be "the land of anarchy". What it means is the land where nobody goes to jail
without due process of law. Hovind had his share of due process and more. He simply keeps insisting on not obeying the law no matter what, so he goes to jail.
