e things. Therefore, to him civil disobedience is wrong and you should obey the law no matter what. I agree with Martin Luther King Jr. His points are very convincing. I believe that moral laws are higher then man-made laws. People should be able to speak their minds. If something is bothering someone they should be able to try to fix it. They should be able to tell the world what is wrong so maybe people will listen. As long as they are not harming anyone or anything it is fine to let the society know what can used changes. Not everyone has to agree with that person they do not even need to listen to them. But if it makes that person feel better by knowing they tried then let them. There is nothing wrong with letting people know how you feel. King refers to people who have made a difference and to me that is a very big deal. Just knowing that I am reading something by Martin Luther King Jr. makes me really interested in what I am reading. Once I was finished reading the letter I really felt he was trying to get in touch with what they believe in. I dont think people should follow a crowd. They should listen to themselves and stick up for themselves and be original. Leibman says people have the right to vote. That is true but if you vote and you dont win where is the justice in that. He believes in all man-made laws. Not everyone agrees with them. I think some laws cause more problems just because people dont agree. In conclusion King argues that a man has a right to take the law into his own hands, if the law is unjust. He also states that if the law is morally wrong any person should be able to disobey that law. Leibman contradicts by stating whether or not the person believes the law to be unjust he still should not break that law. He believes that if a person has a problem with the law, they should use the judicial system to correct it into their beliefs. Is civil disobedience justified in a democratic society? This ...
