The Moral Case for Vigilantism

Our government has decided that might, not law, makes right

The convenience store owners who thrashed that thug with a stick (1) did so because of the refusal to do their jobs by those hired by the citizenry to protect life and property. The same is true of the ongoing destruction of Portland, the BLM riots, and the near-constant street thuggery of the Democrat party Brownshirt gangs, the violent fascist criminals calling themselves "antifa."

With the abdication of their duty by the cops and courts, the safety and prosperity of the store owners - whom we hire cops & courts to protect - was left to themselves. Their decision to act to protect themselves and their property was the mature, responsible and, most importantly, the peaceful choice. It is doubtful they will get looted again soon. Other store owners will emulate them, furthering the peace they created. They already are (2). 

Those unable to protect themselves from law-breakers deserve the protection of law enforcement, and of keeping thugs off the street. Our moral responsibility to protect our fellow citizens does not vanish just because our enforcement and judiciary employees turn away. In fact, our responsibility is magnified when there is no one else to whom our citizens can turn. Self-government is up to the self: that's each and every one of us. 

Personal law enforcement is but a harbinger of what must come if our government continues to ignore our laws; it is the logical, reasonable and necessary outgrowth of the refusal of our current government to enforce our laws. 

When one turns to government for protection and redress in a self-governing country... they are turning to one another; the "self" in "self-governing." And the self is beginning to do as it must: act. 

Perhaps vigilantism delays a revolt against the nascent authoritarian government that has weaponized the law against the citizens; perhaps it precipitates one. We cannot, however, continue as a civilized society under law if our laws are not enforced.

Who enforces the laws is less-important than that the laws are enforced.  

We hire people to make the laws we desire (legislators), enforce the laws made in our name (police) and adjudicate law and assign punishment to those who break the law (courts). Policing and courts are parts of government - self-government; they are our responsibility. 

To these hirelings we delegate the authority to perform these functions to keep our self-governing citizens and nation safe and prosperous. Though we delegate authority, responsibility cannot be delegated: it remains in the hands of the people of the self-governing nation: each and every one of us.

When our hirelings refuse the authority delegated to them, they put at-risk we who hired them and who retain the responsibility for these functions. 

Being responsible for our own government means that we ultimately are responsible for ensuring enforcement of the laws made in our name: if our hirelings refuse their delegated authority, we citizens must accept and act on the responsibility to ensure a safe and prosperous society. We should, will, and must see vigilantism now; it simply is the informal version of self-government as the formal version continues to fail the citizenry and the country. 

If we refuse to act when those we hire to act refuse to do so, we are not a self-governing republic, but a plantation of slaves wandering about aimlessly when the master is out, with might-makes-right becoming the order of the day. 

Once those we hire to protect us decide that might makes right, which absolutely is what the huge spike in un-prosecuted street crime and looting is about, it is up to us to decide who are the mighty: those protecting citizens and civilization ... or those tearing it all apart.