I mean it seems like he doesn't get to throw this criticism around, especially since the only defend-able usage of a vigilante of any real worth is carrying out extra-judicial killings that the state is unwilling or unable to do.
Those who's corruption is rampant but leaves them untouchable, or otherwise have such a tremendous negative effect that the value in removing them through non-legal purposes outweighs the net negative of such a fundamental violation of the social contract.
no subject
I mean it seems like he doesn't get to throw this criticism around, especially since the only defend-able usage of a vigilante of any real worth is carrying out extra-judicial killings that the state is unwilling or unable to do.
Those who's corruption is rampant but leaves them untouchable, or otherwise have such a tremendous negative effect that the value in removing them through non-legal purposes outweighs the net negative of such a fundamental violation of the social contract.