Oh man this is wrong in so many ways. A property tax is not rent of any sort. The reason we use property tax is the government has to have operating money. The liberal way of getting money for us is to take money for those they call "Haves". If someone has property the gov. takes money from them to keep all the un-continental programs going. The problem with property tax is that it hits most of us and not just those that can be vilified as rich.
In the USA, the majority of people do not pay property tax. The majority of people in the USA do not own anything subject to property tax (or "inventory tax", either). Thus, property tax still comes down to "soak the rich"--except "rich" is defined a little differently. The reason I pay rent is because the landlord uses it to pay expenses, partially his own, and partially to maintain the property in question. Thus, property taxes play the same function as does rent. Now, that being said, if you want government projects, they have to be paid for. The thing is that all taxation occurs at the point of a gun. Thus, whatever government does should be so important that it is acceptable to use the threat of imprisonment (or worse) in order to fund it. Don't believe that all taxation occurs at the point of a gun? Try refusing to pay any taxes and see what happens. Now, refuse to donate to charity. What happens?
But back to Snowden and the law. When we look at this stuff we need to look at how the laws are structured and not how we feel. The laws were structured to help the majority of the people
The laws are structured to help competing special-interest groups. At one time, perhaps, a "majority of the people" might have been a consideration, but we are now the government of the lobbyists, by the lobbyists, and for the lobbyists.
ALso Snowden could have gone through channels and had the same effect and still be in the US not NSA but in the US and working.
Snowden going through channels would have just been stonewalled and blacklisted. He would never be able to find work. That's how bureaucracies work. I should know, I've worked with far too many. I've been the "through channels" guy. It gets nothing but being labeled as "not a team player". A "team player" is someone who is happy to just let the gravy train keep chugging along and corruption keep along with it. Someone who wants things to work the way they are supposed to is "not a team player". There can be ways around this, but you have to become a pitbull on steroids with more cunning than the bastard offspring of a viper and Machiavelli--and this doesn't always work. When a system is thouroughly dominated by corruption, when it has rubber-stamp "courts" that approve everything it wants, when it is based upon abuses, it will always refuse reform from within.
Also my view of this is deferent because when a subject like this comes up I go read the statutes someone is being accused of or charged with be for saying anything. Our feelings a not always the same about a subject if we don't know what it is base on. A lot of people take legal precedents and make them right also that they use in there feelings. What I have said is only my opinion about the subject but I base it on the law and precedents of that law.
Therefore, as far as you are concerned, the law can never be immoral.
Sorry, government isn't my God.