Are there any merits for political violence (terrorism)?
" All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable.....All machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil. At any rate, it is a great evil to make a stir about it. But when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer. In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army." -Henry David Thoreau-
I just wrote a paper on "civil disobedience" and compared the methods of non-violent revolution to violent ones as they pertain respectively to major global issues. I came to some pretty ambiguous conclusions. I would like to know your thoughts on the viability of the use of violence vs. Non-V in affecting social change on a large scale.
Could strategic violence be more useful in creating a better world with greater exigence than peaceful movements.
(The model of which i'm thinking is a Robin Hood type scenario)