When fighting against ObamaCare, is violence the answer? No, not yet. But why? The answer you're usually given is the Pollyanna equivalent of, "Now, now -- be nice."

This sort of advice is enough to drive a peaceful person to violence.

The reason violence is wrong is that it fails to persuade. You can do physical harm to those who passed ObamaCare and all you'd be left with is a new and perhaps stronger majority to replace them. Until or unless the battle for ideas is won, violence will have no impact. Once the battle for ideas is won -- or at least is winning -- then violence will clearly not be a temptation.

Advocates of freedom may actually be gaining ground in the battle of ideas. Case in point: Obama did not persuade the majority of Americans to his point-of-view. He simply concluded, "Well, I won the election and might makes right." Liberals right now are pleased to say, "That's what elections are for." One wonders: Will they still say this when they lose an election, or will they say something different then?

I'm not suggesting violence is always wrong. It’s appropriate to retaliate or to prevent violence from being imposed on you. But so long as we have the freedom to argue, think, speak and persuade -- so long as we have freedom of speech -- there is no justification for bombing government offices or shooting at politicians, no matter how despicable those politicians or policies might be. We’re still entitled to vote them out of office and, if a majority do, they must leave.

At present, in the United States, we live under an emerging but still incomplete dictatorship. Under an emerging but still incomplete dictatorship, people have two recourses: Freedom of speech, and passive resistance. When and if the American government begins to restrict freedom of speech, then people will increasingly have no choice but to go underground and fight back by whatever means necessary. We're not there yet, but I sincerely believe there are those in power right now who would not mind that one bit.

The Obama Administration and the current Congress are a worst-case scenario. The world has seen countless dictators such as these, but the United States of America has not, until now, seen their kind. They might prove a two-year aberration which did a lot of damage but, in the end, woke up America (and the Republican Party) to the fact that Big Government must be rolled back, not maintained or expanded. Obama and Pelosi might be turning America into a real two-party system rather than the tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum of socialism-lite, headed by George W. Bush and those of his ilk who now seem part of a distant past. Or, the upcoming elections might prove that America has essentially gone to sleep and while there are still vocal pockets of resistance to socialism and fascism, there's not enough to turn the current disaster into a historic course reversal.

Increasingly, the verdict in American elections is not about narrow policy differences but fundamental principles. Those of us alive today will witness a historic crossroads of great significance. It's make-or-break time for freedom. In a sense, this is good news: Provided that the right principles prevail, in the end.