This has nothing to do with blind obedience whatsoever, which goes entirely against the point. Socrates knew his teachings could run afoul of the law. And in f

This has nothing to do with blind obedience whatsoever, which goes entirely against the point. Socrates knew his teachings could run afoul of the law. And in fact it already had put him in contention with this in power, which many believe was an underpinning of his prosecution. In particular Socrates was a strong and vocal critic of democracy, which is the direction that 'the powers that be' were taking Greece. He feared that masses of people, of no meaningful qualification, were unlikely to be able to be able to vote to effective ends. He similarly feared the election of demogogues, which even at the time democracy had started to show trends towards. And he was stating all of this at the height, and eventual decline, of Athenian democracy. Said democracy was in fact overthrown multiple times during Socrates' life in movements headed by former pupils of his! At one point Socrates was ordered to arrest one of his pupils. An order which he refused though at the same time making no effort to avoid its execution such as, for instance, by informing his pupil of it. See the nuance? Perhaps most ironic is that his final fate was decided by a vote of 500 Athenians of no particular qualification. And he was put to death by a 52% to 48% margin. The point is difference between deference to law and deference to justice. Socrates would not obey the law without consideration, but he would also not seek to avoid repercussion for his actions.