I dunno, your argument is built on democracy and the rule of law being the arbiters of what is right. Democratic systems can be weak, and in the case of US healthcare democracy has failed. At that point, how can vigilante justice be wrong if it represents the will of the people?
I’d argue that the will of the people has no correlation with what is moral. The will of the people can be just as immoral as the will of an autocrat. Tyranny of the majority is no better than tyranny of the few when it’s your neck the boot presses down on.
I dunno, your argument is built on democracy and the rule of law being the arbiters of what is right. Democratic systems can be weak, and in the case of US healthcare democracy has failed. At that point, how can vigilante justice be wrong if it represents the will of the people?
I’d argue that the will of the people has no correlation with what is moral. The will of the people can be just as immoral as the will of an autocrat. Tyranny of the majority is no better than tyranny of the few when it’s your neck the boot presses down on.
Hm good point. How does that improve the problems with rule of law though