The forcible occupation of another man's property or the obstruction of a thoroughfare is so blatant a violation of rights that an attempt to justify it becomes abrogation of morality. Think about that for a second, where in any bona fide text, (so I'm saying "Rules For Radicals" isn't a bona fide guide for behavior), does it ever consider it rational for any individual to disrupt and impede upon the rights of another? Just because you disagree with someone, that's not permission for bad behavior.
To convince others to join you is nothing short of ganging up on, and trying to force your will on another. That's nothing short of sinful. Rights are not a matter of numbers, and there can be no such thing as actions forbidden to an individual, but permitted to a mob. I'm speaking here directly to unions, student protesters, community organizers, and any other radical or non radical group that attempts to solve social problems by means of physical force. Civil discourse is uncivilized behavior!
We have the right to assemble and voice our complaints in an organized, law abiding manner. That is guaranteed us by our Constitution. The Tea Party rallies are exactly how the system was designed to work. Agree or disagree, you have to admit they were law abiding, and left the place better than they found it, the polar opposite of mob discourse designed to intimidate or bully citizens to impose their will. The end result never ever justifies a means that infringes upon the God given rights of another. Mass disobedience is an assault on the concept of rights: it's the mob's defiance of the legal system and totally unacceptable.
How worthy is a cause if you have to force others to comply?