If you Google Terrorism, you will find this definition
The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Ask yourself, what enforced legislation and taxation? I mean ultimately – maybe proximately fines or other forms of punishment will be used to enforce government rules. But ultimately, violence has to be the motor that keeps government wheel turning. Without violence, lawbreakers could simply choose not to suffer punishment -- No thank you, I’d rather not pay that fine. You’re going to suspend my driver’s license? No, I don’t think so. Taxes? I’ve had a tough year, I don’t think I’ll pay them this time.
Now ask yourself, do lawmakers ever use legislation and taxation in pursuit of political aims? My economics textbook says that the reason we have farm subsidies because farmers lobby for them. Politicians give into the lobby because it is aligned with their political aims.
This is not unusual. Special interests play a role in every political system, and politicians give into them because it buys them votes, or monetary donations which are then used to campaign. There is dispute about how strong a role special interests play in elections, but pretty much everybody understands that they exist.
Even the more idealistic vision of politics use legislation and taxation in order to achieve political aims. The reason people expect politicians to pass the legislation they want is because it is aligned with their political aims. If they don’t pass the laws we want, we vote them out! At least that’s what people tell me. So the expectation is that lawmakers will use legislation as a means to their political ends.
I think you see what I’m saying – clearly, Google’s definition of terrorism is wrong.
