[MichaelGroves]

As I see it, people have a right to receive justice. The deal we have with governments is simple: the government handles justice, and in return, we don't handle it ourselves. This is a good deal, it leads to better outcomes because courts are more capable and less hot headed than victims. Vigilante justice is inferior to the sort of justice a government can provide.

But when a government abdicates their side of the deal, what choice to people have? Does such a government really expect people to forego receiving justice at all when their government repeatedly and consistently refuses to provide it? When governments abdicate their duty to provide justice, vigilante justice becomes morally justifiable. This is not a good state of affairs, and is why a government must prioritize being an effective provider of justice. When a government abdicates their side of the bargain, the aftermath is blood on their hands.

[curryst]

> The deal we have with governments is simple: the government handles justice, and in return, we don't handle it ourselves.

The deal is slightly longer: the government gets the right to handle justice, you forgo your right to pursue your personal justice, and you gain the right to not have other peoples' arbitrary sense of justice enforced upon you. And yes, the government bears responsibility for enforcement of personal justice.

If the government abdicates its role, I agree you have the right to enforce your own personal justice. You have not, however, gotten everyone else to sign away their right to not be the target of your vigilante justice.

Put another way, the subject of the "justice" may not feel that the government has abdicated their role and may be content with the way things are going. They have not agreed that the rules have changed, else I strongly suspect they would react differently. If vigilante justice is permissible, responding to vigilante justice with force is also permissible (as is their right to claim what they perceive as "justice").

I also find it a bit spurious to say that the government has abdicated their permission, but the laws are still in effect. If you and the other person have absolved your relationship with the government, the laws no longer apply, and your justification for forcibly removing someone becomes dramatically weaker. You say it's your property and they should leave, they say that was enabled by an unjust socioeconomic system and that reclaiming it was the more just thing to do, and we end up in a very subjective incarnation of justice.

[MichaelGroves]

> If the government abdicates its role, I agree you have the right to enforce your own personal justice. [...] I also find it a bit spurious to say that the government has abdicated their permission, but the laws are still in effect

You've conceded that in absence of a government, people have the right to enforce their own personal justice. If the right to pursue justice still exists in absence of a government, then some sort of law must also exist in absence of a government (from what else would you derive a right to seek personal justice?) The laws to which I appeal now do not come from governments, books, or gods; I believe they are encoded in our genes after eons as living as a social species. Social instincts which evolved to facilitate cooperation in groups are the root of all basic laws written down by governments. When somebody is wronged, in violation of these universal laws, they feel it in their bones.

If you don't believe any of that, believe this: when people feel wronged they will seek justice. Either a government can provide them with a safe framework to receive justice, or people will seek it themselves. You'll never succeed in scolding people away from desiring justice. When seeking vigilante justice is routine, that is categorically a failure of government to provide justice.

[bsanr2]

>from what else would you derive a right to seek personal justice?

Natural rights.

>The laws to which I appeal now do not come from governments, books, or gods; I believe they are encoded in our genes after eons as living as a social species.

>If you don't believe any of that, believe this: when people feel wronged they will seek justice. Either a government can provide them with a safe framework to receive justice, or people will seek it themselves. You'll never succeed in scolding people away from desiring justice. When seeking vigilante justice is routine, that is categorically a failure of government to provide justice.

You're trying to justify violating the sanctity of life in response to a violation of the sanctity of property. These are clearly not on the same level, and so you feel the need to defend this utterly unnatural stance. What you want is permission to carry out vigilante justice without the threat of reprisal, but that's not how this works. If you do something as protest that can later be rectified, that is something different; but if you throw off the mediating force of the law to unilaterally take what can't be given back, you have opened yourself to like or greater doom. Nothing can protect you, not even your self-righteousness. Justice doesn't exist in a state of nature, only dead-reckoning and vengeance.

[vdqtp3]

> You're trying to justify violating the sanctity of life in response to a violation of the sanctity of property.

Eviction by force is not the same as murdering someone for squatting. You're conflating the two.

[bsanr2]

He's suggesting that it's his right to do so. That's what is meant by his referring to action outside the law. It's the natural conclusion to such action, because for the people being evicted, the loss of shelter can be tantamount to loss of life.

There is no world in which violence is seen as an appropriate tool to force an eviction where people do not die resisting eviction.

[llampx]

Not to mention, property doesn't come for free. I as a middle-class person may have poured years of my sweat and blood into my property and then someone can waltz in and claim my hard work for their own with a hand-wavy "I can't afford market price for rent here"

[MichaelGroves]

> Natural rights.

'Natural rights' are the entitlements we feel that we have, derived from the rules we feel others must follow according to natural law. 'Natural law' is the rules for social conduct which are baked into our genes. Or, as wikipedia puts it

> Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws, though one can forfeit their enjoyment through one's actions, such as by violating someone else's rights). Natural law is the law of natural rights.

Natural law and natural rights are two sides of the same coin.

[bsanr2]

If natural law is a form of genetic determinism, as you suggest, genetic variation and diversity would lead to not one singular set of natural laws, but a spectrum of them. Collectively-held rights cannot be derived directly from this broad spectrum; natural rights serve as a medium through which felt natural law may be applied practically and collectively. It is thus wrong to speak of "natural law" as a justification for socially-permissible action; you are only doing as you wish, with no regard for how others feel.

Again, when you do so, you must understand that others have no obligation to tolerate it.

[slothtrop]

Indeed. This was the force behind the Me Too movement. Legal channels failed, and therefore were circumvented in favor of going straight to the media, with all the issues that entails.

[lotsofpulp]

That one is slightly different because proving it is much harder.

In the squatting case, it is just government (and all taxpayers) dumping the problem of homeless people onto a set of unfortunate property owners. It is simply much cheaper for the government (and hence taxpayers) to not address the root causes.