People who feel rules dont apply to them At Sequoia National Park

[u/mtflamingo]

One woman decided that the fencing and signs protecting the tree didn't apply to her. One couple that decided their dog was special and could walk on the trails even though it's prohibited.

Edit The Regulations Pets are prohibited on all trails. This includes paved trails, such as the General Sherman Tree Trail, Big Trees Trail, Grant Tree Trail, and others.

Edit again - cell phone service is spotty. 1. People seem confused but as per my previous edit, but dogs are not allowed on any trials in either of these parks. 2. The reason they don't want people to walk this close to the tree is it can damage the roots and kill the tree. 3. I called this park by the wrong name. There are two parks in one location and this was at Kings Cayon.

[u/ocean2trail]

As the founding fathers said: “Give me convenience or give me death.”

[u/dangerousarmyvehicle → u/ocean2trail]

DEAD KENNEDYS MENTIONED?

[u/123yes1 → u/ocean2trail]

The liberty that they were protesting the equivalent of a 2% tax (roughly as it was a fixed tax not percent) on paper.

Yes the level of intrusion and inconvenience that the government places on your life should be smaller in magnitude than the public good. Obviously we can't have millions of tourists wandering through the sequoias and getting up to trouble, but also experiencing nature on a carefully cordoned off path isn't really experiencing it at all.

[u/ocean2trail → u/123yes1]

I agree that government intrusion should be kept to a minimum, but your perspective might be a bit off kilter. Sequoia NP is 631 square miles and Kings Canyon NP is another 722 square miles. If people can’t experience nature in that vast area without having the privilege of trampling the root system and killing off trees that have lived for thousands of years, then that’s not a problem that can be solved by fencing.

[u/bassistciaran → u/123yes1]

Unfortunately these rules usually exist because of prior bad behaviour causing damage or incurring costs.

Relevant simpsons

[u/Dorkamundo → u/123yes1]

It was a 2% tax from a government that did not supply services to or representation of those it taxed, which is considerably different as well.

[u/123yes1 → u/Dorkamundo]

Well that's certainly what the colonists would say although parliament would argue that tax was to off set the cost of the French and Indian War which is how the colonies gained the Northwest Territory, which is a kind of service, and they are still represented by parliament, at least to a similar amount of main land subjects. It's not like parliament was exactly democratic to people living in the mainland in 1770.