“Good people don’t obey bad laws,” said Czech anarcho-capitalist and educator Urza in a recent interview with DVTV. His new campaign of #no_obedience has sparked public debate across the spectrum. The campaign does not call on citizens to revolt or blindly break the law, but to think. To think about which laws they consider just and which they should perhaps not blindly obey.
At a time when the state is regulating more and more areas of our lives, it is all the more important to think about their meaning.
When the Law Is Not Justice
The basic message of the campaign tells us that the law and morality are not the same thing. As Fredéric Bastiat wrote in The Law (1850), “When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law”. Urza’s message echoes this timeless warning.
In short, legal does not always mean good, and illegal does not necessarily mean bad. Throughout history and up till today, there are countless examples of the state ordering crimes: from slavery and censorship to today’s drug bans and extortion in the form of taxes.
The #no_obedience campaign calls on people to question unjust laws and, if necessary, to peacefully refuse to comply with them—for example by rejecting excessive state regulations, bans on symbols as violations of free speech, or bans on voluntary exchange such as drug prohibition.
People should have the right to follow their own conscience, as long as it does not interfere with the property rights of others. In this sense, disobedience is a moral act, not a crime. If we accept that morality and law can diverge, then obedience ceases to be a virtue in itself. Civil disobedience becomes a reminder that authority should serve ethics, not replaces it.
The Tradition of Civil Disobedience
Ideas and actions similar to this campaign can be found throughout history. For example, in the 19th century, philosopher Henry David Thoreau refused to pay taxes for a war he considered unjust. Similarly, Mahatma Gandhi led a campaign against British rule in India through nonviolent civil resistance, known as satyagraha. His methods included boycotts, civil disobedience, and peaceful protests, such as the famous Salt March of 1930, which drew attention to the British monopoly on salt production.
Countless libertarians, such as Friedrich August von Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, also warned against blind faith in the state. Urza is reviving this tradition in the Czech context—without violence, with an emphasis on morality and education and voluntary cooperation.
Why Does This Provoke Public Debate, Applause, and Resistance?
For politicians and officials, the idea of disobedience is dangerous. It challenges the very foundation of power: the obedience of citizens. The campaign quickly attracted attention in Czech media and on social networks. Some praised it as “a timely reminder that morality should guide our actions,” while others criticized it as “a risky challenge to the rule of law.”
Critics accuse Urza of anarchism or irresponsibility, but his message is exactly the opposite. People should become responsible for themselves instead of relying on authority.
Freedom Is Not Chaos
Urza does not advocate breaking the law for personal gain. He talks about the line between morality and obedience. About the courage not to follow an order that conflicts with our conscience. True obedience should come from this, not from coercion. This is the true meaning of freedom: responsible thinking and voluntariness. As Henry Ward Beecher once wrote, “A law is valuable not because it is law, but because there is right in it.” Urza’s message echoes this sentiment — that conscience, not compulsion, should guide a free society.
The Price Of Freedom
“I don’t want to go to prison, but I am prepared to pay the price,” Urza told DVTV. This shows that freedom is not always comfortable. It is a commitment that one must defend in the face of the law and oneself. His campaign opens up a space for debate that Czechia has long needed: where should state authority end and personal responsibility begin?
This piece solely expresses the opinion of the author and not necessarily the magazine as a whole. SpeakFreely is committed to facilitating a broad dialogue for liberty, representing a variety of opinions. Support freedom and independent journalism by donating today.
