If king admits that breaking laws in order to change them is "a legitimate concern," how does he still justify civil disobedience?

The correct answer for the question that is being presented above is this one:

(1) he upheld the general use of nonviolent civil disobeyed against unjust laws and

(2) saying human rights must take precedence over such laws. If King admits that breaking laws in order to change them is "a legitimate concern,"

Then here are the two reasons for his defense of civil disobedience (1) he upheld the general use of nonviolent civil disobeyed against unjust laws and (2) saying human rights must take precedence over such laws.

laissez-faire supporters believe that government should not interfere in the economy other than to protect property rights and maintain peace. they believe that government regulation of the economy increases costs and eventually hurts society more than it .

hope this x