It seems that you place a much higher importance on following the law than I do; I don't disagree with what you're saying, but you seemingly imply that that's a bad thing.

Generally, following the law is good, but I hold no illusions that there's any connection between legality and morality.

Not to nitpick but I hope you meant for this to be hyperbole. In general, the law (at least part of it, the parts that aren't purely for practical reasons such as 'everybody should drive on the right side of the road') purports to embody whatever is thought of as 'the moral common ground' of the society it is operating in. In the margin, the implementation can be debated (an epistemological problem of ethics), but prohibitions on and punishment of e.g. murder, rape and theft have a large and explicit moral component.

Also, I think that prohibitions and punishment say that they have a moral component, but that's largely due to making it easier for the populace to swallow. Opiate of the masses and all of that.

This doesn't mean that I think that there should be a world without rules, either. But these (at least America's) set of rules certainly don't come anywhere close to representing my morality or ethics.

(with claims as outrageous as these I feel like I'm being trolled, but there are at least two people upvoting you?)

No. I'm saying that by using 'morality' as the reasons for outlawing murder is used that way. In reality, it's very simple to derive the reason that murder is wrong: if we're all allowed to go around murdering each other, we'll have to watch our backs the entire time, and collectively, humanity will never move forward. Very utilitarian. No morality about it.

> Are you saying that measures against capital offenses, various forms of assault, protection of private property and enforcement of contracts "do not represent your morality or ethics"

Yes, I don't think that John Locke was the absolute end to philosophical thought. "Private property" and the accumulation of capital have been the root cause of a large amount of the injustices in the world. Greed is not good. Markets don't work.

> Pray tell, then what are your ethics?

I'm still working out the absolute details, but I'm most certainly in some part of socio-anarco land.

> (with claims as outrageous as these I feel like I'm being trolled, but there are at least two people upvoting you?)

It's because you're thinking on the surface too much. For example: America's rape laws are not in line with my morality. This isn't because I think rape is all good and fine, it's absolutely abhorrent. However, in the eyes of the law, an 18 year old and a 17 year old having sex is wrong, and the 18 year old will be branded a sex offender for life. This is wrong. I don't agree with it.

I'm not saying that I'm utilitarian. Its just that morality can be used as a tool to produce policy that has nothing to do with morals: see the invasion of Iraq, for example. I think we're actually agreeing here.

North Korea is nothing like an anarchist society, and "if you don't like it, move" is not an argument anyway.

In this case, I brought up something that's an implementation detail, because it's an easier segue into the topic. There are other things that are larger, such as the mentioned private property issue.

Also, even if you get the desired headlines and attention, I don't think you score points against bad rules by violating good rules. I believe more people concluded Anonymous/Wikileaks are vandals and bullies from hearing about (or being affected by) the DDoS attacks, than came around to sympathy for Wikileaks.

So orthogonal from any 'letter of the law' analysis, it was an immoral and counterproductive thing to do.

If the 'sit-in' directly blocked the objectionable activity, a different analysis might apply. (And, more bystanders might be sympathetic.) But this, and most other 'sit-ins' I've seen, are just rudeness for attention. Moral and effective activists will choose other tactics.

And regarding: "its important enough that the consequences are irrelevant"

That way lies zealotry, madness, impotence, chaos. The real consequences always matter. The advocate who forgets, in their passion, that consequences matter becomes others' tool, often against their own interests.

I agree with your statement on its face, but there are certain times when it's okay to break the rules. Sometimes you have to do bad things to achieve good ends. No action is ever white or black, there are only shades of gray.

> If the 'sit-in' directly blocked the objectionable activity, a different analysis might apply.

They did disrupt. Maybe not as much as Anon would have liked, but they did.

Directly blocking the objectionable activity would be something like blocking a disputed eviction, or preventing the deployment of people/resources that are necessary to enforce a bad law. The disruption actually stops or reverses the objectionable activity, for the duration it can be maintained. That's targeted, and far more understandable as a (possibly) principled, non-hypocritical tactic.

Disrupting other things, because you hope to break your opponents with discomfort inflicted through uncivil means, is what crosses the line, a line beyond simply 'law'.