First, the exercise of this right is subject to the standards of fair and equitable conduct. I may be right, for example, if I think that a regulation against jaywalking is an unnecessary violation of my rights. However, this does not allow me to organize a large sit-in in the streets that paralyzes traffic for a week. Conformity with the concept of justice requires that there be some relationship between the importance of the goal one seeks to achieve and the power of the means one uses to achieve it. The problem lies in the idea that the laws in force are moral. How can a governing body please everyone while moving forward as a nation? The idea of making laws that appease everyone`s morality is a mistake. But states can still pass laws that appeal to most people`s morality, because there are usually fairly widespread principles, such as suppression of personal property and murder, that are morally wrong. It could even be an argument for not having a state at all, since a state will inherently violate the morality of its citizens. But we can also use this statement as an argument for citizens` protest and disobedience as justified. If citizens give their consent to the state to create laws, then it is also their right to disobey its orders if they do not agree.

Elected officials are called public servants for a reason: it is the responsibility of the general public to control their nation. Worse still, the majority may have shown in a series of free and fair elections that it strongly supports what the minority sees as an unspeakable evil. This is obviously the case today in many parts of the South, where the white majority is either opposed to desegregation or not as eager to pursue it as the black minority. Are we prepared to say that majorities are never wrong? Otherwise, there is no absolutely conclusive reason why we must always give more weight to the results of an election than to considerations of elementary justice. It seems to me that we can begin by rejecting an extreme position. It is the view that disobedience to the law cannot be justified under any circumstances. Taking this position means saying one of two things: either any law that exists is a just law, or greater injustice is always committed by breaking the law. The first statement is simply false. The second is very doubtful. If this is true, then the signatories of the Declaration of Independence and the Germans who refused to carry out Hitler`s orders committed injustices. “All sensible Australians fundamentally understand that an important pillar of our peaceful and democratic society is respect for the rule of law,” Cash said.

However, it is possible to adopt a more moderate and plausible version of this position, and many quite reasonable people do. These people recognize that disobedience to the law can sometimes be legitimate and necessary under a despotic regime. However, they argue that civil disobedience can never be justified in a democratic society because such a society provides its members with legal tools to resolve their grievances. This is one of the standard and often sincere arguments against the activities of people like racial equality advocates in Congress who change laws they deem offensive by breaking them radically. These groups are often convicted of risking unrest and flouting the law, when they could achieve their goals in a much more just and patriotic manner if they respected the law and limited themselves to courts and methods of peaceful persuasion. Martin Luther King once said, “Freedom is never given willingly by the oppressor; It must be demanded of the oppressed,” implying that individuals who are members of privileged groups in society rarely want to voluntarily renounce their privileges. Thus, breaking the law becomes a necessity and can be justified because such an unjust law cannot simply be tolerated. On the other hand, laws are supposed to be perceived by some as imperfect, and to make a change or correct the wrong thing, laws must be broken.