Just out of curiosity, Tschida, I'm going to ask a thought experiment of you: Let's all find ourselves in your described utopia within the same capitalist confines we currently operate.

(Shoplifting and vandalism) would be less (of an economic fact) if people were far less tolerant of these and other similarly illegal protest behavior.

We wake up today and the community of "vandals" and shoplifters has seen the light thanks to the pressure of their community, these behaviors are bad and they don't want to be bad people doing bad things so, they stop. Six months later we receive a strange report: Master Lock reports a need to lay off 1000 workers and shut down a lock making factory. One year later stores throughout the country begin scaling down security personnel citing "no further need" for the position. Safe makers begin shutting their doors later that year. Suddenly the country is in the midst of an economic crisis later known as the "lawful years" as it becomes apparent just how large an industry it is that relies upon petty theft and "vandalism."

Like it or not the system and state of affairs you so vigorously espouse as morally right has as its end result a thriving prison system and large sectors of its economy beholden to larceny.

I can't believe you want people to lose their jobs, Tschida. Why do you want people to go hungry? What's with that? Why do you hate America?

In an attempt to stop the 'war machine' at home, it is permissible to prevent repair and refurbishment of the equipment that is needed on the battle field?

Yes.

If that was true, then why is it such a crime that when the war started we had to use some vehicles that did not have the armor needed?

Because the war itself is a crime. If you forced people to carry out life threatening criminal activities without life preserving mechanisms in place, would that make the crime you're committing better/worse/same as before?

But now, the protesters are willing to interfere with our troops getting their equipment refurbished and back to them to protect them and to continue pushing the decline in violence and death? Is that the 'excellence sense' you are referring to?

Way to frame the question (coughnewspeakcough). How about this way: Our military, charged with protecting the lives of its soldiers, knows the Port of Olympia cannot be used without resistance by the local populace. By choosing this port it has willingly taken on the possibility of slowing the supply chain, thus further depriving the soldiers refurbished equipment. Why does our military willingly send down an order that has negative repercussions for the troops abroad? I find the sense excellent because this action of local port resistance brings about these sorts of questions.