On Balance, authoritarianism cannot ever be justified

PRO and I have agreed to limit this to authoritarianism as it relates to government, even though the actual resolution states it more broadly. As this is a normative resolution, the burden of proof is shared -which is to say that while my opponent has full responsibility to affirm the resolution, I have an equal responsibility to negate it. For PRO to win this debate, he must show that "On balance, authoritarianism is never justified." The logical negation of the resolution is what I have to argue in support of, such that to win this debate I must show that "On balance, authoritarianism is justified in at least some cases." So, if I can show that in at least some cases authoritarianism is justified, then I have won this debate. I do not have to argue for the justification of an authoritarian state or its being used in most situations; that burden would be abusive and beyond the scope of the resolution's logical negation. It is thusly my contention that in at least some cases, authoritarianism is justified. In order to show that in at least some cases authoritarianism is justified, I want to talk about how and in what circumstances authoritarianism may be justifiably implemented. Principally, there are two that come to mind: in a state of war and in a state of natural disaster. 1. Authoritarianism in the form of martial law is justifiably implemented to facilitate reconstruction in war's aftermath. War is a state of organized, ongoing military hostility which is carried out by and among states which is characterized by the use of violence in armed conflicts to achieve political objectives. Being in a state of war entails an absence of peace and the absence of security, which is to imply that ordinary civil and political order is no longer in effect. When a people, state or nation finds itself at war, the ordinary laws and practices of due process which are are designed to promote, protect and uphold the rights and liberties enjoyed in a state of peace give way to, as John Locke wrote, a state of "enmity and destruction." (2) To be in a state of war is to be in a theater of belligerency such that civilian governments and their mechanisms for enforcing law cannot function. If civilian governments governments and authorities can no longer enforce laws to uphold and protect the rights and liberties civilian law is instituted to protect, then martial law can be justifiably implemented on a temporal basis to facilitate reconstruction efforts in the wake of war's aftermath. Insofar as martial law entails at least the imposition of "curfews, the suspension of civil law, civil rights, habeas corpus, and the application or extension of military law or military justice to civilians" it is decidedly authoritarian in nature. At the end of the WWII in Germany and after the end of the American Civil War, martial law's implementation was absolutely necessary to facilitate reconstruction efforts by preventing decent into total chaos. (3) 2. Authoritarianism in the form of martial law is justifiably implemented if necessary to protect civilians and property from further damage after a natural or manmade disaster of catastrophic proportion. In the aftermath of natural or manmade disasters of catastrophic proportion, it is possible that civilian governments may lose their capacity to enforce the rule of law which is designed to protect and uphold the rights and liberties enjoyed by citizens in states of peace. And if a civilian government loses its capacity to enforce the rule of law, then civilians and their property become subject to further damage from those who would seek to exploit catastrophe as a source of criminal opportunity. To prevent those who would exploit a natural or manmade disaster from causing further damage to individuals or their property, the implementation of martial law may be necessary. To the extent and only to the extent that implementing martial law (which, again, is authoritarian in character) is necessary under those conditions, it is justifiable. One example of where martial law's implementation has been necessary to protect people and their properties from abuse in the absence of civilian government's being able to enforce the rule of law is found in the history of the Great Chicago Fire. After the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, Chicago's mayor declared a state of martial law though once the fire was extinguished, there were no longer any widespread disturbances and martial law was lifted within a few days. (4) As is stipulated in the round's structure, I will reserve rebuttals until the next round. Many thanks to my opponent who initiated this debate, and to all judges who have taken the time to read it. Sources: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.constitution.org... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org... (4) http://en.wikipedia.org...