I've already said why I think your idea is bad, but I'll say it again. Don't bother rebutting, I don't want to debate. I just want to clarify myself.
It is not your job here to tell people what to do. Don't post if you don't want to debate; you know what your posting provokes. Make yourself clear the first time. Behold, perhaps your favorite fallacy. You seem to believe very strongly in it.
Argumentum ad nauseam"The most dangerous weapon anyone can wield is self righteousness."
Just because someone said it doesn't make it true.
When one chooses to put their own judgment above that of the law, problems occur.
Why and how do problems occur? What makes the law more inherently correct? The fact that more people may have decided on it?
I'm not even talking about disobeying silly laws that have no meaning.
What is your point? Who decides what laws do, and do not have meaning? Laws are laws. There is no one thing that makes them automatically correct, or superior in ethics. The people making the laws are not necessarily independent and unbiased; they do, in fact, often have goals and means which they are serving.
When you put yourself above the law, you turn to an internal source to decide what's right.
That is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, allowing yourself to decide what is right independently, and not hinging on other's beliefs to decide your own, is a better way to decide what's truly right and wrong.
Ever seen one of those generic movies? Where someone starts out a good guy doing something good, but ends up disobeying the advice of others to achieve his ends. At the beginning there is nothing inherently too bad, but he ends up becoming outright evil because he lacks any respect for an authority. He becomes his own authority and whatever he was trying to do degrades into a quest to achieve an ends, often with disregard even for human life. Vader comes to mind.
There are more medieval tragedies that fall into this category than generic movies. Regardless, you do realize you're basing a major portion of your arguement on 'generic movies', right? Again, this really has nothing to do with what yenku is doing. You are assuming he is like this, or that he will be like this, and that is not the correct. You have no reason to believe these things other than to serve the purposes of the side of the arguement you initially took.
Those movies have a moral, this it it: Respect authority.
That is not at all their moral. This is a false statement. For one thing, the moral of Star Wars is that it is easier to be on the "dark side", to be evil, but that does not make it right, or better. The truly strong ones, like Luke Skywalker, stay pure, and on the good side.
That is why respect for the law is important.
Because Darth Vader is evil? Wow, great arguement. /sarcasm Maybe you should clarify yourself, again.
2) Your group doesn't really stand for anything particularly new. Eco-activists-generic, that's what you are. Except you also disregard the law.
Irrelevant.
3) You'll probably end up never doing anything anyway.
Assuming he's not a liar and made this all up-- he's already done something.
None.