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.
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.
A hypothetical scenario where one country is persistently dumping harmful chemical or radiological waste in a waterway on which another country relies on for drinking water seems like a pretty solid casus belli to me.
I think we can all agree that Kaczynski's bombing campaign is completely and unambiguously unjustified, but I don't see the need for pearl clutching over the quoted statement.
so just to clarify, are you endorsing violence? you made clear that you personally don’t endorse teddy k (RIP) but you’re dealing in hypotheticals.
hypothetically if Donald Trump poured crude oil on your mom, you might find it just to hit him. you might say you would do just that. if that’s not likely to happen to you, you’re blowing smoke. which is bad for the environment.
Yes, but I don't see how that's some kind of a "gotcha". I think most people endorse violence when all other options have been exhausted. If the police catches someone in the act of doing what you describe and they resist arrest, violence is likely to occur and is probably justified.
Not trying to minimize it, but it's difficult to measure violence, what's the level of violence of a rapist? of someone with a polluting lifestyle of 100TCO2eq/year (violence to the environment, so distributed to people)?
