Do laws define morality, and is obedience virtue?

There is an obvious need for rules to govern the interactions of individuals in order to form a stable society. Many minarchists argue that this need for such rules is inherent, undeniable proof that a central government is necessary at some level, and that obedience to politicians is thus virtuous within a vague set of limits that vary from one minarchist to another. However, this line of reasoning disregards the very principles it claims to uphold by necessarily placing a political class in a position above the law, and creating a monopoly that guarantees waste and abuse in the name of efficiency and justice.

*source

When "laws" are merely the arbitrary dictates of politicians, they carry no authority. They are merely threats of violence against people who fail to comply. There is no virtue in a system that threatens injury to the life, liberty, and property of peaceful people. How then can obedience to bad laws be virtuous?

Every dictator in history has ensured that his action have been "legal," and that opposition to his regime would be "illegal." I don't need to invoke Godwin's Law to make this point, because any dictatorship, monarchy, or oppressive "democratic" government serves. The most vile dictators in history commit few - if any - crimes directly themselves. The violence is always committed by obedient soldiers, police, prison guards, bureaucrats, and judges in the name of "the law." Without obedient people following orders and enforcing "the law," tyranny is impossible.

Good laws are discovered through reason and applied equally to all, not imposed by fallible humans upon others. Authority is based on a rational understanding of rights, not demands backed by threats of violence against dissenters. Obedience is only a virtue when supported by a rational understanding of rights and authority. To comply under duress is to suffer wrongdoing, not to show respect.

What is the Sphere of Virtuous Obedience?

Obedience is often presented as a virtue that maintains society, especially to children. Obey your parents. Obey your teacher. Obey the referee. Obey your boss. Obey your religious leaders. Obey your political leaders. Obey the law. Do these all carry the same weight?

Parents are stewards of their children's rights until the children are ready to assume personal responsibility, so obedience to parents is usually a good idea. This is a gradual growth process, and children learn over time how to apply reason and knowledge to various situations. Until they are ready, parents have a duty to choose on behalf of their children. Abusive parents is one obvious exception, but a general expectation that children obey their parents is not inherently unreasonable.

Teachers and referees are presumably legitimate authorities within their sphere, so obedience is probably a good general principle here, too. In a free education system of voluntary participation, parents would be sending children for sports and school for the betterment of the child as he prepares to assume more self-ownership anyway, so even the government-corrupted status quo is at least an imitation of what a free society would likely provide.

In a free economy, there is an exchange for mutual benefit between an employee and an employer. The agreement is to obey a supervisor, foreman, or boss within the sphere of work duties in exchange for pay. There is an obvious market demand for such things as employment contracts that detail specific duties, workplace safety measures, wage standards, etc. and government cannot honestly claim responsibility for the development of any of these things. Obedience within such specific spheres is reasonable and virtuous.

It is when we come to religious leaders that things start to become murky. Regardless of your position on the atheist/deist/theist/specific faith spectrum, you must surely be aware that many self-proclaimed religious leaders are con men and scoundrels. There is no special authority granted by titles and ordination. Sorry. The most authority they can claim is that which you grant to them, and their claim to divine or mundane knowledge is always open to dispute. The instant someone says, "Obey me because I am a priest/pastor/imam/pope/patriarch/whatever, run away and don't look back.

As for political leaders their "laws," and their enforcers, obedience is always a matter of compliance under duress. Prudence dictates sufficient compliance to avoid their threats of abuse, but this must never be confused with obedience to authority. remember that they always operate through usurpation and trespass. Anyone who says otherwise is a religious fanatic whose god is The State.

The Only Law is Reason

Cheesy sophisms like, "Be the change you want to see in the world," have a measure of truth. We have the capacity to reason. Too often we abandon this capacity and allow it to atrophy in the name of "obedience to authority." It is time to reclaim this fundamental human characteristic and discover our potential as individuals. We each only truly have any control over ourselves as individuals. Only by expanding our own conscience can we hope to bring enlightenment to society as a whole.

We must be willing to take responsibility for our own actions, and be willing to analyze individual situations based on a consistent set of rational principles including (but not necessarily limited to) the Non-Aggression Principle, the Golden Rule, and other universally-applicable concepts.

Freedom is risky, but I prefer those risks over the guaranteed dangers of authoritarianism. If you don't agree, I won't force you to be free, but I will resist your attempts to rule me.