[little jeremiah]

I disagree. There were other factors that got the British out of India besides Gandhi’s non-violence movement. If it were his movement alone, it would not have worked.

But, OTOH, massive civil disobedience is, IMO, the next step here. Refusals of all kinds, massive national strikes, massive demonstrantions in DC (say 10 plus million people). I think those would have some effect.

[andy58-in-nh]

Please understand my argument: it is not to forswear physical action if it is called for as a matter of Liberty's survival. My preference is for non-violent resistance because first, it is reasonable given our present circumstances, and secondly, it is likely to be effective when one considers our unique history.

Americans have been terribly divided before, the most awful result of which still resonates today. Our present division is not geographical but ideological: we disagree upon the proper role and function of government. Those of us who insist upon a limited role for government only have our history, our Founders' philosophy and logical argument on our side; as opposed to the ideological preferences of our opponents, who clearly share the same essential enthusiasms that forcibly ended over one hundred million human lives during the last century, somehow in spite of their professed objectives.

So: resist, and if necessary, fight like all Hell. I like our odds.