Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
“If a law is unjust a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so” - Thomas Jefferson
1. There is no evidence jefferson ever said this

2. There is no evidence anyone else ever said this, either

The closest you get is MLK.

See https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jeffers...

But MLK also talks about moral obligation and not other forms of obligation.

He was not trying to create a free for all where everyone gets to decide which laws are okay or not, because he (and jefferson) were not complete morons.

MLK was himself referencing Saint Augustine:

>Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Considering that his rhetoric was very much based on Christianity, it's clear what standard of "unjust" he was applying.

> Considering that his rhetoric was very much based on Christianity, it's clear what standard of "unjust" he was applying.

Considering the diversity of standards of justice within the history of Christianity (which, in just the US, includes—relevant to this topic—MLK, sure, but also the Southern Baptist Convention, founded explicitly in support of slavery), I don't know that having rhetoric grounded in Christian theology tells much of substance about the standard of justice one is appealing to.

Touche, however there is plenty of evidence of people throughout history making this assertion, including MLK.

He was trying to create a more just, egalitarian society. I don't understand how you can consider acting in accordance with leading research on successful drug policy "moronic"?

Successful drug policy meaning what here?
loading story #42788324
Is it unjust to prohibit the sale of illegal drugs, weapons, etc.? Society has good reasons for regulating certain goods. I regularly see people in my community who are enslaved by fentanyl and I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy. The society I live in decided to make selling it illegal. What is unjust about that?
loading story #42787316
loading story #42787284
loading story #42787505
so we all individually can just decide a law is unjust? that'll be fun
Don't worry - jefferson never actually said this because he wasn't a complete idiot.

Don't take my word for it though, the monticello folks looked into it too - https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jeffers...

It is a fun quote though, because it's one of those quotes that people want to use to justify their own dumb behavior.

"If you don't like the law, feel free to ignore it" - Albert Einstein

If you come to disagree with the justice of a law, your options are to conform or, yes, decide that the law is unjust.
{"deleted":true,"id":42787429,"parent":42787177,"time":1737508338,"type":"comment"}
I mean strictly speaking the people voted for Trump, so collectively they're all okay with this.

Of course Trump's platform was enormously based on law & order and combatting the drug trade, which he seems to think should still be actually illegal and is not ending the war on drugs so, I don't know - make of that what you will.

Maybe Thoreau? That's more authentic and gets at similar themes. On more than one level considering his circumstances and run-ins with law enforcement.

”Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison."

I wonder how this sentiment is going to play out in Luigi Mangione's trial.
Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner.
So were most aristocrats of the time. Applying presentism doesn't invalidate the idea.
loading story #42787211
loading story #42787349
loading story #42787194
loading story #42787440
loading story #42787414
loading story #42787226
… in a society where slavery was legal, widespread, and rarely questioned.

Murder has never been legal.

The legality of it is not in question (the purpose of this quote). It was as unjust then as it is now.
He tried to have multiple people murdered.
Jefferson did, certainly. He was instrumental in starting a war from what I understand.

Ross though? The government alleged it but never bothered to prove it. Furthermore the government agents involved were laughably corrupt, so anything they alleged needs to be taken with a massive grain of salt. For all anybody here know, they fabricated the entire assassination story to distract the public from their plot to loot Ross's money (which unlike the assassination stuff, has been proven in court.)