And here I thought this was a left-wing forum.
All of those revolutions were justified. Oppressive government is the enemy of a free people no matter where and when it manifests, and such a free people have the right and duty to overthrow it.
And defining "a government doing something we dislike" as oppressive is the enemy of law, peace, and justice and all the other benefits of stability.
There has to be a better reason for revolution than the people being ornery and independent-minded (which played a significant role in the American Revolution). I'm not saying such qualities are bad - just not sufficient to justify revolution.
It wasn't even just about there being no consultation: They just outright bypasses our existing representative institutions in a blatant power grab. Parliament was essentially claiming ultimate jurisdiction over the whole empire. Regardless of the history there, Americans didn't want to be ruled by London fiat. If wanting to be ruled by a government that isn't a few months away by ship is unjustified, then NO rebellion is justified.
That (the distance argument) is the most damning anti-revolutionary statement I've seen in any discussion on the subject, because Parliament wasn't doing anything where being months away by ship had anything to do with any laws it was passing(1).
If the colonists could keep up with the latest fashions and the latest ideas across months of ocean, and decide actual representation is overrated in discussion amongst themselves, the idea that Parliament exercising its authority to expect the colonists to pay taxes as opposed to get a free lunch off the British Empire(3) was an act of tyranny comparable to any of the others is stretching the term past all meaning.
1: Britain wasn't ruling on day to day policy, or policy based on reactions to something happening that needed an immediate response, so being "distant" isn't nearly the kind of issue it would be if it would be in those circumstances. If the colonists can keep up with discoveries and fashions across months of ocean, Parliament can keep up with anything important happening in regards to the policies it was covering with tightening up old laws and a handful of new ones just as efficiently. The colonists wanting increased autonomy may or may not be a legitimate issue, seven weeks sailing between Boston and London (as opposed to how far from Boston to Philadelphia by horseback?) isn't.
2: "They were ready enough to claim representation as a right but the fact was that they did not really want it in the flesh. The Stamp Act Congress agreed to declare it 'impractical'." - Barbara Tuchman,
The March of Folly. (Which, I should note, lists British policy here as a perfect example of folly, which I agree to - I'm defending it as lawful and morally acceptable, not wise and certainly handled in such a way as to make the problem worse, not better to make the situation worse - and people like me into reluctant rebels.)
3: All the protection of Empire and none of the burdens of supporting it. As for mercantilism, "'Not a hobnail or a horseshoe', (Pitt) once declared, should the colonies be allowed to manufacture." (Tuchman again) Yet, we don't see that in practice, do we? How much are the colonies actually depending on importing? There were colonial craftsman and artisans of all sorts after all. It would be pretty hard for them to do their job if importing every manufactured item. And for some professions, hard to exist.
It ought to be noted here that the friends of America - even those who weren't just picking the opposite side of the crown (look at the Wilkes Case - by the way, I'd say that was if not tyranny in the full certainly contrary to the spirit of Parliamentary privilege), and most were - were still supporters of Parliamentary authority. Pitt put it best: "Pitt went on to announce that the Stamp Act must be repealed 'absolutely, totally, immediately', and at the same time accompanied by a statement of 'sovereign authority over the colonies ....in a strong terms as can be devised and be made to extend to every point of legislation whatsoever - that we may bind their trade, confine their manufactures, and exercise every power whatsoever except that of taking their money out of their pockets without their consent.'"
And
King George III's followers are the ones advocating tyranny?

That's more tyrannical - not to mention splitting hairs so fine they could cut steel - than anything up to and including the Port Bill.
Related to note #2:
I've a question. In the context of British use of representation at the time, where "virtual representation" has the whole body politic represented by every member (as opposed to members elected from let's say London representing London and only London), what's the difference between how the Americans are represented and how Britons are? And how will adding American-resident representatives make any difference?
Yes, Pitt condemned this (and I mostly agree - I think the idea of "each representative represents the whole body politic" might not be the worst of all methods in a redesigned or newly designed democracy) but it was the system which adding American representatives wouldn't in itself eliminate, and the idea that the Americans are getting gyped of their "rights as Englishmen" needs to consider what "the rights of Englishmen"
were rather than say that because 18th century Britain wasn't ruled by fully democratic principles it was tyrannizing the Americans.