[mbmjertan]

It's difficult to reply to this without implying I'm defending Kaczynski or advocating for violence. I'm not - and I wouldn't like to be misconstrued here, as I'm replying about violence in general.

I would say that violence should never be the preferred solution, but that at times it's the only solution that has any chance of success. This is not to say that it's a "good" approach, or something you should enjoy doing. However, if you (or your people) don't have any other way to facilitate changes that are non-negotiable for you (such as your fundamental right to live being threatened), should you turn the other cheek? Is resorting to civil violence unacceptable in such situations?

We've had examples of civil violence bringing drastic changes when people's lives are being threatened by governments, hunger or societal structures. Notably, the French Revolution. Is it unacceptable for people to kill their king if they don't have anything to eat, and the queen tells them to eat cake if they can't eat bread? Depends on your moral stance. Would the issues that the revolution focused on change if people weren't violent? Highly doubt it.

Of course, I am not equating the French Revolution to the Unabomber: it's drastically different to kill innocent civilians with mailed bombs because of "principles" than it is to behead your king because you don't have anything to eat. Violence is the only reasonable choice in some (albeit rare) situations. The acceptability of it very much depends at what's at stake.

[catchnear4321]

with more dialogue like this, even if the instigator is less willing to come to the table as diplomatically, less willing to talk openly, at least initially, so long as true discourse can occur, the need for violence will hopefully decrease over time.

thank you.