We covered this stuff in jurisprudence, Gustav Radbruch said that when a law openly violates the justice principle then a judge or individual in right to strike it out or disobey it. This guy spent time on the run from the Nazi's during WW2. Other natural law writers supported the idea that for a law to be valid it must have the public good as its basis. brilliant eyecatching poster.
Just adding, I'm saying that if laws are morally normative, then there can't be "bad laws", and people who disobey laws can't be "good people". I'm just pointing out a plausible, and perhaps already existent situation where "good people disobey bad laws" would make no sense.
Not necessarily. What you said applies to propositions like "2 plus 2 is 4". If 99% of the people on the world believed that 2 plus 2 is 5, that doesn't make 2 plus 2 really 5, it's still 4. But when it comes to propositions of morality, it's unclear whether we have have the same kind of objectivity we have with an mathematical equation.
That said, I'm not even talking about truthfulness and falsity. I'm talking about moral normativity, and in particular, a case where all things in accordance with the moral norm is "good" and anything in discordance with the moral norm is "bad". Hence if any set of law become the moral norm for that society, then for that society, disobedience of the law is morally bad. It really just is a different perspective of looking at the world, it's perfectly fine if you don't think laws should be morally binding on top of being legally binding.
while i personally identify with capitalism, in an anarcho society i think there would be room for different modes of economics... thats the beauty, i think, of anarchy... it allows individuals to decide for themselves what they prefer.
prehaps communal economics would work better in some areas... capitalism in another... or a hybrid of the two in yet another...