The right tactic follows from where the contested power actually sits

The argument

On this view the search for a best form of protest is the wrong question, because the methods on offer act on different things. Proponents argue that a strike operates on a counterpart who depends on the protesters, civil disobedience operates on an authority that must defend its rules in public, and persuasion operates on a population whose opinion decides the outcome. Each is strong where its target exists and inert where it does not, so asking which is best in general is said to be like asking which tool is best without naming the job. Supporters work through the consequence. Where the grievance concerns a counterpart who needs something the protesters supply, withdrawal is available and probably decisive. Where the grievance is a law and the authority enforcing it is answerable to a public, open refusal puts the rule where that public can see it. Where neither holds, and the obstacle is simply that most people do not yet think there is a problem, advocates argue that the only lever is the slow one, because there is nothing yet to withdraw and no rule to break that anyone would notice. Proponents also note that the question of what protesters need shapes the answer as much as the question of who they face. A movement seeking an immediate concession, a movement seeking a change in law and a movement seeking a shift in what is thinkable are pursuing different outcomes, and advocates hold that a tactic appropriate to one can actively damage another. The conclusion drawn is not that all methods are equally good but that their ranking is unstable. Supporters argue that the useful work is diagnostic rather than doctrinal: identify who can give the protesters what they want and what that person depends on, and the method follows from the answer.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics reply that this is close to saying nothing, since every advocate of a particular method already believes it fits the situation they are in. They also argue that the position understates how often methods combine, so that the real choice is a sequence rather than a selection. A stronger objection is that treating all tactics as situationally valid removes any ground for ruling out methods that are effective but unacceptable, which a doctrinal commitment supplies and this view does not.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The targets overlap in practice: a strike also moves public opinion, and persuasion also raises the cost of enforcement. [Rejecting P2] Methods are rarely wholly inert, and a tactic can create the target it needs rather than requiring it to exist first. [Rejecting P3] Most movements want all three outcomes at once, so the distinction does not narrow the choice much. [Rejecting C] If the ranking is unstable only because cases differ, a general ranking may still hold on average, which is what advocates of a best method claim.