After World War II, some Germans tried to defend venal behavior by claiming that they were “just following orders” from their government.
Governments in America have never done anything nearly as awful as the Nazis, but there certainly are some very unpleasant blemishes in our past – and some very bad laws today.
This raises an interesting moral quandary. To what extent are we – as moral individuals – obliged to obey (or help enforce) bad law?
As is so often the case, Walter Williams has strong feelings and compelling analysis.
Decent people should not obey immoral laws. What’s moral and immoral can be a contentious issue, but there are some broad
guides for deciding what laws and government actions are immoral. Lysander S. Spooner, one of America’s great 19th-century thinkers, said no person or group of people can “authorize government to destroy or take away from men their natural rights; for natural rights are inalienable, and can no more be surrendered to government — which is but an association of individuals — than to a single individual.” French economist/philosopher Frederic Bastiat (1801-50) gave a test for immoral government acts: “See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.” He added in his book “The Law,” “When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.”
I don’t pretend to know where to draw the line, but, as suggested by my posts about jury nullification, I fully subscribe to the libertarian principle that “not everything that’s illegal is immoral, and not everything that’s immoral should be illegal.”
So if you’re dodging taxes, cutting hair without a license, or smoking pot, the government better not put me on a jury if you get arrested. An if you have an expired registration sticker on your car, an unregistered gun, or a stockpile of normal light bulbs you plan on selling after the ban takes effect, you can safely confide in me.
International Liberty 
[…] On a related issue, civil disobedience against unjust laws also should be […]
[…] On a related issue, civil disobedience against unjust laws also should be […]
[…] so long as bad laws (or incomprehensible laws) exist and government officials sometimes act dishonorably, we should […]
[…] bottom line is that Walter Williams is right when he says that it is immoral to obey bad […]
[…] And if politicians fail to follow those principles, then citizens should not feel obliged to follow unjust laws, (and hopefully their peers will back them up by practicing jury […]
[…] more accurate to accuse the bureaucrats of behaving immorally. And Walter Williams, among others, has argued that “decent people should not obey immoral […]
[…] more accurate to accuse the bureaucrats of behaving immorally. And Walter Williams, among others, has argued that “decent people should not obey immoral […]
Jury nullification is what juries are FOR! It is why we HAVE juries! Juries are there to make sure the law is fair and fairly applied. Case in point… when King George was king it was decreed that all the rabbits in England belonged to the king. The penalty for “poaching” the king’s rabbits was death. Many a poor, starving peasant, hoping to feed their poor, starving family, was caught with a gunnysack full of bunnies… yet none were ever convicted. Juries refused to convict a man and send him to his death for the “crime” of trying to feed his family. It was universally felt that the punishment was far too severe and the juries fulfilled their duty as the final safeguard against an unjust law.
[…] starting this blog, I’ve cited several columns by Walter Williams (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), in large […]
I’d be interested in your position on the test (included in your article above)
“a test for immoral government acts: “See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.”
As applied to the ability of local governments to declare imminent domain to confiscate private wealth and build a shopping center or office complex for the benefit of a few individuals who would profit thereby.
@Thomas –
I would be willing to risk an occasional thief getting off from the incredibly rare situation where a single socialist could withstand sitting in a jury room with 11 other people defending their view (and, by the way, it would end in a mistrial, not an acquittal) so long as it gives me the opportunity to deny incarceration for a person who grew a particular plant, or sold raw milk to willing, knowledgeable people.
You anecdotal knowledge of juries granting large settlements from deep pockets is different from a criminal conviction. Civil awards only need a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ which means even if it can’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury can award what they feel is appropriate. This is the exact opposite of jury nullification. All juries, at all times, are geared toward the protection of the individual, be it from governments or corporations.
For every ‘good’ law on the books there are thousands upon thousands of bad laws that police and prosecutors use to further their careers at the expense of the lives of those who can least afford to defend themselves. Jury nullification is, many times, the ‘last line of defense’ from an overreaching government.
Check out Radley Balko’s blog http://www.theagitator.com for a few months and you’ll see how wide-spread the problem really is.
I have trouble with jury nullification and the idea of not obeying an “immoral” law precisely because people differ as to what is “moral”.
If it’s ok to refuse to convict for smoking pot because you disagree with drug laws, then it’s ok for a socialist to refuse to convict a thief because the victim was “rich and can afford it”.
I’ve heard of juries in product liability type cases essentially saying “we don’t think the company was at fault, but they have lots of money, so let’s give the victim something”. Is this form of jury nullification ok?