“Positive values of peace = negative value of risk invested by the individual to achieve it”.

When Governments talk of peace they reference an ideal in their own eyes totally divorced from the reality of the citizens ideal of peace: They refer to the dislocated global view of peace primarily comprised of back slapping and fawning. Their view of peace equates into support of murderous wars in Vietnam, Iraq and lately Afghanistan where extreme violence is continually excused as vindication for a search for peace when peace is actually what was removed.

The citizen view of peace differs to what appears to constitute the official definition. The peaceful citizen realizes that for a life filled with personal peace, of primary importance is freedom from harassment, whatever form that may take. Governments exercise a double standard against their citizens by excluding the use of their own tactics and forbidding access to the same arsenal of weapons needed to achieve a peace acceptable to its citizens rendering their own example of peace keeping hypocritical.

Contrary to community expectations, the Police force of this country is too often a barrier to peace and effectively transposes the meaning of peace with injustice by disallowing the acceptable use of personal force to counter harassment in order to achieve peace. A mans castle is not his home when its peace is assailable by laws which exclude any form of retaliation to attack from external forces upon it, outside passive police intervention aimed at subduing the complainant.

Yes Jay of Melbourne, the above is an anarchist view of injustice but a police force is not the answer to law and order issues and neither are more and more innocent citizens incarcerated a solution to our modern day conundrum of freelance harassment