It goes into the very deep question of "How much is one life worth?" - even though it wasn't intended. I'm pretty sure that the deaths weren't, but a consequence of the bias created by abuse of information, as well as other circumstances that lead to military shooting sharp. I've always struggled with sacrificing life for the economy. If the strike would've started to starve people and become more than an inconvenience (which it was for most people, except some singular cases), then yes, we're at the trolly problem.

There was a humanitarian corridor, which worked well in most of the cases - what we hear about are usually the exceptions. Climbing over barricades, changing vehicles, getting passes, yes, that's inconvenient. But it's not life threatening.

Nobody was starving. That's why I see the argument of economy as a very macabre argument to justify the excess of violence.

As I wrote in my second post about it, there are indeed many other factors that lead to the tragic events, the two deaths through shots. But using money-not-made as an argument to justify all those injuries and the three dead? That's disgusting in my eyes, and I hope I understood that wrong somehow. I personally can't ever put money over humans. In any way. As said and written, there are many other arguments.

As to the bureaucracy - yes, that's like it everywhere. But as well as everywhere - as soon as you get a critical mass, you can more or less do what you want. I wrote about that as well, how the protesters became a state within the state - unfortunately, with the same flaws, too. If your wife gets a critical mass together, she'll be able to do the same. We've done it, with bikes in Ibarra, 12 years ago. Becoming so many biking down the road that nobody could do anything against it, creating awareness for bicycles. In the end, it became famous enough to be supported by municipality and police.