"Rule of law" and "law and order" types work hard to misunderstand right and wrong. All they have is an army of straw men and a tactic of talking in circles to keep the conversation from going to uncomfortable places.
They'll say you must obey every "law" unless and until you can change it. When it is pointed out that it was right to break slavery laws (for example), and it wasn't necessary to wait until the law was changed to free any slaves you could- "illegally"- they'll go into the history of how slavery was supposedly abolished (or expanded to include everyone). Missing the point again, because it is necessary to their beliefs.
When told you shouldn't obey unethical "laws" they'll fall back on "Who gets to decide what's ethical? Ethics is complicated." When told that "ethical" isn't complicated at all, then they'll pull out "So everyone is free to ignore every law they don't like?"
No, everyone is free, or even obligated, to ignore every counterfeit "law"- all those "laws" that violate life, liberty, and property. They also have no right to violate anyone, even if the "law" allows it. Or demands it.
"Law and order" only sounds good if you don't understand that too much order is as deadly as too much chaos. Authoritarian tyrants are good at imposing order, and it's not good for society.
Anyone advocating "Rule of Law" or "Law and Order" is not on the side of liberty. They are choosing tyranny. Are they doing it because they are cowards, or is that a separate problem?
