The first condition is that if all other ordinary possibilities for changing the law have been used and have been rejected by legal institutions and therefore all options have been exhausted and civil disobedience is the their last choice of action. The second condition is that acts of civil disobedience should usually target only substantial and clear violations of justice, such as an unjust equal liberties and opportunity law, rather than any law. This condition is very logical because if everyone was allowed to protest against every small law that they think is unjust, but does not have a huge impact on society, the largest protest would not be seen with the same importance because acts of civil disobedience would be something this would happen daily. If every law were challenged, civil disobedience would be too widespread and this would ultimately undermine the function of government. Furthermore, if they attempt to protest and change significant laws, typically remaining injustices in the same arena will also be successfully addressed. The third option is that acts of civil disobedience should be limited to those cases in which the dissenter argues that all others subjected to the same degree of injustice have the right to similarly protest. Rawls argues that if civil