It should always be the first option; however, I do believe that under certain (and very exceptional) circumstances, violence is acceptable and necessary.

It was for Ghandi

Especially today

The powers that be in America are preparing themselves for both violent and non-violent revolutionary actions. The corporate state is more in power than it ever was before. It desperately needs to protect its power, and the strong-arm apparatus of the state will continue to be the method of enforcement with ever-increasing boldness.

The system has been not-so-secretly reconfigured to ensure the powerful & wealthy stay that way while the rest of us are squeezed for blood to varying degrees, and generally kept ignorant as to why.

It's one of those things most of us seem to at least have a sense of, yet little actual motivation to do anything substantial about.

Gandhi? He made it work.
I am the velvet bulldozer, it certainly works for me.

In India worked a lot.

I have debated this in another forum. My idea is to put IMP`s in houses so when an intruder was there unwanted just hit the electromagnetic pulse and put everyone out. Unfortunately that has too many complaining factors, so I settled on a shot to the head saves a lot of b.s.

Better than viloce

Ghandi proved that nonviolent , noncooperation can have it's effects , provided you have enough people to do so . Imagine crowds of people just standing there doing nothing , it works .

Depends on who’s being resisted.