He did, even though it all started with what was intended to be a joke - because he was aware of the impracticality of his 'proposition'.
Some seem not to understand, though, that 'impractical' does not equal 'nonsensical' or even 'false'.
It equals "mu". It is nothing, and has no bearing on the operation of this universe. It's the same sort of tautological pablum as "A is A." It betrays a misunderstanding of what it means to be human, and an attempt to invalidate what is before his very eyes, rather than understand it.
What is your point? That Kaczynski used force against others, and the State used force against Kaczyinski? Great, we could tell that from reading a newspaper 14 years ago. That society accepts the latter while deploring the former? Anyone could tell you that. Yet, you find this sufficient to declare hypocrisy, rather than delve into the real questions of why the two used force, and why one is legitimate and not the other. You haven't addressed the very guts of the issue. You've barely scratched the skin. For one, what does it even mean to "deserve," and what does it mean to "respect" someone? Beyond that, does the definition of "respect" change depending upon the actor? If so, why is this so? Is that reasoning legitimate? What makes reasoning legitimate in the first place? How do we know that this determination is reasoning, and not a declaration based on another means of judgment? So on, and so forth.
You only made a point if I accept your premises. As you can see, your premises are extremely questionable, and without justification for those premises, you've satisfied only yourself. It's akin to a six-year-old declaring themselves the winner of a game, and when asked why, the six-year-old answers "because I win." Tautology.