It's probably wrong to per se dismiss political violence as always wrong, or suggest we must always seek to restore order. "A negative peace which is the absenc

It's probably wrong to per se dismiss political violence as always wrong, or suggest we must always seek to restore order. "A negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice." It's a lot easier to make that claim when the body of examples are deranged, unhinged rants with no relationship to reason or reality. But, aren't we disagreeing with the message, and not the delivery system? How do you separate the bad instances of political violence for the good ones? Have we had no "good" examples of political violence since the Civil War? Is that the idea, we've solved all of the problems requiring violence by now? I dunno if I buy that.