Summary: There are three types of legal regimes. Reasonable law regimes are democratic institutions that respect the rule of law. As a result, citizens are morally obligated to obey the law when pursuing reform. Unreasonable law regimes are authoritarian, yet the government still has ideals of legitimacy that they seek to live up to. Under these regimes, civil disobedience is morally justified to force governments to live up to these ideals. And under non-law regimes, there is no legitimate relationship between the government and the people. Necessity is a justification for even violent acts under these regimes.

I wonder how does the author define terms like 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable'.

What reasonable people could agree to. Although this is more procedural fairness than substantive.

So long as rights are generally protected, the rule of law is respected, a functioning democratic process is in place, and the outcome isn't blantanly unjust, laws are reasonable (although not necessarily ideal).

That's a pretty biased way to describe 'reasonable'.

Part of what makes laws reasonable is that they reflect universal principles that free people would accept, which require certain procedural mechanisms and don't presume any substantive conceptions of justice.

It's like saying a fair contract is one where the process is fair, and the outcome isn't substantially unjust. If those conditions are met, the contract is upheld; if not it becomes voidable/void. This is still a weak requirement and reasonable law regimes would encompass every liberal democracy.

I greatly doubt that there are such "universal principles" in the first place.

Making the case for these universal principles is the purpose of my newsletter. I've made a previous argument recognizing the foundational principles of all just societies in the link below. If you have any criticisms, I'd love to hear them so I can address them in future posts.

https://garik.substack.com/p/foundation-principles-and-formal

Very interesting. I would surely look into it and share my thoughts, if any.

Moral error theory is comprised of two parts: a denial of the existence of objective values, and a claim about the ways we attempt to make reference to objective values. Legal regimes and how morality relates to law are no different.

Do they have a better case design!