My broader rationale goes like this: - The objective of any movement is to effect a change - The number of people pro- or anti- change is always dwarfed by th

My broader rationale goes like this: - The objective of any movement is to effect a change - The number of people pro- or anti- change is always dwarfed by the number of ambivalent or mostly-ambivalent bystanders (aka those who don't really care) - The shortest path to the object is therefore converting the bystanding mass to your side - You convert people more easily if you don't scare them - Overthrowing the system and militancy always scare people I don't have my books on designing effective protest movements in front of me, but I'll post the names when I'm home later. The above ideas are all cribbed from reading. PS: Not that militancy doesn't have a place. But unless you're willing to start a civil war and have substantial economic and popular backing before initiating hostilities, the state is always going to have more power (see point about silent bystanders).