Give Peace A Chance - not a chance

Why is it hard for our government, those in power, those with the guns, to give peace a chance?

Could it be that, out of fear those in power are protecting a way of life, or protecting their certain privileges within the social order. Could it be those with guns (police or military) have been trained to follow orders, not to question the orders, are given laws to protect the current social order and are just trying to do the best to perform their job.

I do not think we should blame the police, they are doing what they think is right within their heart, not seeing the larger picture of the nature of social change. Although at times you have to wonder, how their conscience allows them to follow orders to take actions they feel will incite violence. Do they not see the nature of violence begetting violence?

In the case documented in the video attached to this post, it seems as if police were doing what they thought was necessary to not disrupt a deployment to war, thus protecting the larger social order of the war authorized by congress, and the wishes of one of their constituents (the US Army). During the eleven day resistance as documented by US Navy veteran Wally Cuddeford, it would have seemed clear that the overall resistance was going to be peaceful unless provoked into something more. Although news reports of the incident seemed to take the more "official" side of the explanation and not provide a self documented version, nor the protesters version, as additional points of view.

Every conflict has multiple points of view. A judgment has to be made in the peaceful resolution of any conflict what actions are to be taken, or what point of view will be honored. It would make sense that all parties agree to the actions, thus merging the points of view, thus the most complete form of peace. In many cases this might not be possible because of the opposing nature of the points of views. Then a sacrifice must be made. It could be a sacrifice on both sides, again, seemingly the second most complete form of peaceful resolution. The third and final form, is obvious, one side sacrifices and gets their way. It would seem most likely that a one sided sacrifice could only be made by those in power, and it is their choice who sacrifices what. A right to protest, a right to health, a right to life, that is the decision the people in power must decide when an agreed upon solution is not available, and a solution with sacrifices from both sides is not allowed to happen.

The odd thing is that this country was founded specifically to put the people in power, and keep power from accumulating by birth or in other ways for the sake of power itself. So when those in power make the decision of who sacrifices, wouldn't the US Constitution always protect the citizens, not the government? Meaning the government sacrifices to the wishes of the people? But up to what cost should the Government sacrifice?

According to the US Constitution, the US guarantees to every State "a Republican Form of Government". The definition of a Republican Form of Government includes "a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote". The Ninth and Tenth Amendment also protects the rights of the people, not otherwise discussed in the constitution. Which would indicate the people should usually be the benefactor of sacrifices made to reduce internal conflict.

You might say, whoa, here we go flaunting around the Constitution as if it were the ten commandments or something. For American Citizens, it is the equivalent of the ten commandments, in fact superseding the ten commandments in areas of conflict. Every American should be familiar with the rights imparted to them by the US Constitution and how they are embodied in Federal, State and Local laws, or they will lose those rights at times. As is discussed in the testimony referenced here, protesters seeking peace asked about laws that might limit their rights, and in so doing won temporary victories to document the peaceful nature of the protest. This is an important example of the value of the rights imparted upon American citizens and restricted from Government.

Back to the question, up to what point should the government sacrifice to the people? It is clear that to the point that other laws are not being broken, always. The primary conflict comes up when it is the government's duly elected or appointed representative's prediction that a law will be broken and action to prevent should be taken. At this point, resolving the conflict between government and people's rights, becomes very sticky. The government might justify such actions away from peace to protect a larger peace. There are no boundaries to "I thought taking action would prevent the breaking of laws". This can justify any action, even murder, to protect some potential, but not yet real, threat to peace. This cannot be the definition of peace, nor resolve conflict. It will leave open the door for future conflict as the different points of view have nothing specific to base their opinions upon, thereby creating an unending conflict. One only resolved by sacrifice of the people to move past the transgression.

Thus conditioning the people to a level of relative peace, always to be at the whim of the government's ability to create conflict. They have the guns, they have the power, unless we stand up and utilize the rights given us to force decisions that reduce conflict and bring about peace for all the common people.