USPS text scammers duped his wife, so he hacked their operation

If society doesn't want vigilantes than it must take an active role in pursuing and punishing criminals.

You are saying it as if there was only one society with one juridiction.

At least here in the US, I can say one of the last things we need is more people in jail or prison.

Society does take an active role through police, fbi, etc etc

Vigilantes are criminals too so society takes an active role in pursuing and punishing them as well.

That only works if you aren't in a:

Anarcho-tyranny

A stage of governmental dysfunction in which the state is anarchically hopeless at coping with large matters but ruthlessly tyrannical in the enforcement of small ones

https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q64594123

Then you get your door kicked in for not paying taxes on $50 venmo transaction, or saying the wrong thing online but when there is a school shooter (or presidential assassin) the cops wait for them to finish while they play with their phones.

thanks for that example, it really paints a picture of the impotence of the state, tho watching the video it's easy to blame the failure on the hundreds of individuals that didn't take action, but they are meant to be the vangaurd; we handed the monopoly on violence to these people and for what?

It’s difficult when the authorities over you have no jurisdiction over the criminals harming you.

While it is true that the justice system is often used to disproportionately hurt the poor, nobody is getting their door kicked in for not paying taxes on a venmo transaction.

Precisely correct. People have a natural right to receive justice, so IF the government abdicates its assumed responsibility to provide justice people have every moral and ethical right to enact justice themselves.

People with every moral and ethical right to enact justice are the types that can acquire clearance and join various authorities in the pursuit.

Vigilante’s don’t abide by the laws so aren’t well positioned to dispense justice in a non hypocritical way.

Maybe carve out a low level clearance that gives grey hat types a little room for counter red team activity.

People have a duty to defer the enactment of justice to the government only if there exists a government which fulfills their end of the deal. If no such government exists, then people are ethically and morally free to do it themselves.

Because the real world is a Batman comic book.

Civil forfeiture is roughly similar.

We deem vigilantes criminals because we have no way to hold them accountable if they infringe on someone's rights.

Society is supposed to take an active role, but sometimes they have other priorities.

Big companies getting hacked or scammed make headlines and generate FBI action. People like me, not so much.

Civil asset forfeiture is indeed horrible and often used to basically just steal from the poor. It is also totally different than having your door kicked down for failing to pay taxes or being arrested for saying the wrong thing online.

I never read any comic book, sorry..

In absence of a government willing or able to enforce laws, vigilantism creates a public pressure to fix the government. Either way though, people are entitled to justice. If the government doesn't provide it, then the government is responsible for the harmful consequence of the resulting vigilantism.

The parent commenter said "pursue and punish", not "put in jail".

There are other forms of punishment besides jail time. But really I'm more concerned that the scam organization is shut down, even if the main scammer isn't put behind bars. If nothing else, it'll slow down and reduce the scams.

Sure, but it does match the GP’s point about tyrannical enforcement against small violations. The examples GP provided weren’t apt, you pointed that out, I’m providing another one.

Red light ticket revenue funding small town budgets is another. Brake-light rationales for traffic stops…I could go on.

The key is what you pointed out, that these are never used against the elite class.

We just need different people in jail. Release all the people who got caught with dime bags and lock up the people who steal money from seniors. Those are the actual monsters.

Unless I'm mistaken, we vigilantes are deemed criminals because it is, ironically, against the law to enforce the law on someone else without being granted that authority by the state.

Its still not quite accurate to deem vigilantes as criminals though. Unless they've been charged and convicted they aren't technically a criminal.

Fair enough. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but at least in the US you will almost certainly spend a bit of time in a jail when being charged, booked, and arraigned.

Given that we're talking about legal, rather than extra judicial, pursuit and punishment I would expect jail to be a part of that process.

> it is, ironically, against the law to enforce the law on someone else without being granted that authority by the state.

Not sure why that's "ironic". Seems reasonable. Only people trained and accountable should be doing things that would violate people's civil rights and take away their freedom or possessions.

Obviously the reality of our legal systems fall far short of ideal, but IMO vigilantism is not the answer to that.

> Its still not quite accurate to deem vigilantes as criminals though. Unless they've been charged and convicted they aren't technically a criminal.

You sound like the kind of kid who would put their hand an inch from their sibling's face and constantly utter "not touching! still not touching!" and think that you were "technically" not breaking the rules, so your behavior was ok.

> People have a natural right to receive justice

There's no such thing as a "natural right". Rights are granted, not innate. In the US we might think freedom of speech is a "natural right", but go to a country that doesn't have that, and you'll see how "natural" it really is. (And hell, even in the US, free speech rights are curtailed all the time.)

> IF the government abdicates its assumed responsibility to provide justice people have every moral and ethical right to enact justice themselves.

I don't agree with that. Look at how (for example) the 1800s in the US west looked when it came to so-called "justice", when the government wouldn't or couldn't prevent or track all that much crime. That's not a world I want to experience.

That's just your opinion. In reality that's not actually how it works, and what you describe is a worse world for everyone.

What reality of ethics and morality do you appeal to, that isn't just another opinion?

Other countries violating rights doesn't mean those rights don't exist. I speak of natural rights and not legal rights for this reason.

And not that I have not denied the negative consequences of vigilantism for society as a whole. Those consequences are the reason governments are supposed to seek justice in a more orderly and accountable manner. It is when governments renege on that responsibility that they bare the blame for the consequences, as people seek justice on their own (because they know justice is their right and will seek it themselves if nobody else will for them. This innate understanding of being entitled to justice is the proof that a natural right to justice does exist.)

> Not sure why that's "ironic". Seems reasonable. Only people trained and accountable should be doing things that would violate people's civil rights and take away their freedom or possessions.

Maybe ironic wasn't a great fit there, I stand by the rest of the comment though. I blame Alanis Morissette for my inability to recognize irony accurately.

> You sound like the kind of kid who would put their hand an inch from their sibling's face and constantly utter "not touching! still not touching!" and think that you were "technically" not breaking the rules, so your behavior was ok.

There's a legal definition of "criminal". Is it being an annoying little brother to think definitions are important?

The people receiving vigilante justice aren't technically criminals, either, by that logic. You're inflicting punishment on innocent (not proven guilty) people.

Who says no such government exist?

A government which is effective at prosecuting phone scammers? That government doesn't exist in America. Victims who turn to vigilantism are therefore justified and the negative consequences of this are the responsibility of the government which is neglecting their duty to victims.

Just realized I had a very meaningful typo in the last comment and its been to long to edit.

I meant to say "the vigilantes" not "we vigilantes." I don't take part in it and don't condone it as long as we collectively agree to live under a legal system.

I agree with you though, vigilantes are imposing "justice" on innocent people. The right to a fair trial and a jury of your peers is a really important check on power. Vigilantes skip that whole process.

As much as I want to agree with you and become a beekeeper I still see holes in reasoning. Governments have prosecuted a number of sim swappers and sms scammers. They are not effective at doing this at volume in my opinion but that can be argued.

This feels like a really weird take to me. Like all crime should just be permitted because being a criminal has become mainstream?

Innocent people in jail, or for controversial reasons, seems like its own issue entirely.

Like the way too common attitude on this site rbat because some people are smart/resourceful enough not to be victimized, that somehow makes victims deserving for not being so fortunate.

Why would anyone but a scammer/criminal want such a society to even exist. I'll go so far as to compare to to the holocaust, that somehow it's fine as long as they're not coming for you?

"First they came for the vulnerable..."

What do you do when law and justice become so disconnected that law enforcement actively ignores horrible things happening in your local community (e.g. the Pakistani rape/prostitution gangs in England, with Rotherham as central figure)? Do you just "vote better" and wait a few years for nothing to happen?

Vigilantism is always a symptom of far greater problems, people don't do it just for fun and to cosplay as Batman.