When does violence become a reasoned response?
Only when it’s done in self-defense?
But our government has been using violence to resolve conflicts here and abroad since its inception. And we all know that it hasn’t always been done in self-defense.
Our current president, Barack Obama, on accepting his Nobel Peace Prize, even spoke on violence as sometimes “being justified.” And how many would argue with him on that?
But what if we, as citizens of this most (militarily) powerful nation on earth, began to argue the same rationale in responding to “the violence” that our own government has been perpetrating against us?
Economic violence.
Environmental violence.
Judicial violence.
The rich and powerful carry out these crimes against the rest of us on a daily basis, yet all we seem to read about are the “sensational” crimes of …window breaking, at a May Day rally. What if we (like the founding fathers did against England) began to use violence as a means of defending ourselves against the monied-interests that control every branch of “our” government?
Would it be justified?
I don’t believe that any sane person would choose violence if “they knew” that other options were available to them.
So, to the monied-interests that control America, I ask: what options have you given us?
The vote?
You control it.
The media?
You own it.
The courts?
You manipulate it.
Congress?
You buy it.
Non-violent protest?
You suppress it.
Again, when does violence become a reasoned response?