> If nobody obeys a law, is it really illegal?

Factually, yes.

> It's more like a custom.

Incorrect. That leads to social breakdown.

> This is a way to reform it.

That is not reform. That leads to, as previously pointed out in a comment that's in this same chain that you nominally read, either anarchy or selective enforcement, which are the opposite of reform.

> So if your so called authorities passed a law saying you're required to participate in some atrocity such as genocide, you'd do it with a clean conscience? Okay.

Did you fail to read the part where I explicitly said that

>> or you believe that the system is fundamentally unjust and you take drastic action to fix it

I guess you didn't, because it's very clear that

> you'd do it with a clean conscience?

is incorrect, because I'd consider that system to then be fundamentally unjust.

Either you have reading comprehension problems at the high-school level or you're blatantly operating in bad faith.

> I don't have the power to do so.

You have a vote, do you not? And you can go out and raise awareness of issues, and organize protests, and contact your representatives, and do other things that are the basic requirements for existing in a democracy?

> Also, people who try "drastic" actions are called terrorists.

So either you've forgotten that you can do the above, or you're claiming that the government will call you a terrorist if you do those things.

You're saying that you believe the system is unjust, but you're unwilling to do anything substantial to fix it (which, as previously discussed, selective disobedience is not a fix). You are a hypocrite, and all of your stated beliefs are meaningless.

This thread is devolving into insults and name calling, so I won't engage any further. Thanks for the discussion.