...is most effective when the population cannot vote: e.g. India under the Raj. It works under these conditions because it is an expression of the popular will, which government have a hard time resisting. But, in a country with elections, as in the US, election results are billed as the preeminent expression of the popular will, while acts of civil disobedience, by comparison, look like expressions of the will of some minority or faction. Civil disobedience in a democracy is only going to be decisive if it's on a really massive scale, with a really large proportion of the population participating: but then, if you have a large proportion of the population willing to engage in civil disobedience, you probably have the votes to win elections, so it's a moot point.
I see value in civil disobedience in modern America as a corollary of electoral politics (e.g. create headlines through civil disobedience which propel pro-liberty candidates into office) but not as a replacement for electoral politics - opting for civil disobedience instead of electoral politics would be a serious strategic error IMO.
"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: