On Balance, authoritarianism cannot ever be justified

It should be noted that as I write this round, my opponent has regretfully closed his account. I am terribly afraid that may be the case because he didn't think that a win was possible. Alas, in the event that he does return, I shall give him every opportunity to recoup lost ground -though I likewise compelled to rebut the arguments he's offered in the first round, and address some other matters. My opponent has fundamentally misunderstood the impact of the phrase "on balance" for this resolution. While he claims that it requires many cases, or at least more than one case, in order for the negation to sustain its burden, he is mistaken due to the way he elected to word the resolution. For your convenience, I'll paste it below: "On Balance, authoritarianism cannot ever be justified." If PRO had said "On balance, authoritarianism is unjustified" or something to that general effect, then his interpretation of the resolution would hold. But, his interpretation of the resolution cannot hold because he didn't. Rather, he worded the resolution in absolute terms. Notice the wording: "cannot ever." That means that PRO must argue that in NO case is authoritarianism EVER justified. (Capitalization added only for emphasis.) Likewise, CON must ONLY argue that in SOME cases (at least one but fewer than all), authoritarianism IS justified in order to win. As such, in conceding that "There are some cases, agreed by even libertarians like J.S Mill, that authoritarianism may be justified" he has, regretfully, lost the debate. Even still, I regret that PRO is no longer with us. This could have been a salutary learning experience, but alas. While I do not yield to my opponent's definitions, as both are insufficient, I want to observe that authoritarianism to its fullest extent implies the absence of individual freedom and the presence of individual freedom implies the absence of authoritarianism. However, insofar as they are mutually exclusive, both exist on a gradient scale -though I think it is fair to say that where individual freedom is greater than authoritarianism than the government in power could not be said to be authoritarian and alternatively where state power is greater than individual freedom, the government in power could be said to be at least 'more authoritarian than otherwise.' Notice the broadening effect this has on what authoritarianism means, conceptually, and the implied widening it renders to my opponent's burden. Similarly, I am disinclined to agree that "defensibility" is a sufficient standard for that which is just, but if all that which is defensible is just than by any standard I've already won my debate. However, it is necessary to observe at this point that what which is "defensible" or "right" varies in time and according to context, such that while one course of action or state of affairs may be a justifiable response (where justifiable means "defensible" or "right") in one circumstance and not the other. Said another way, even if in some cases some courses of action or state of affairs is not justifiable some of the time, that does not mean that is always unjustifiable all of the time. So, while it may be that in a state of peace, we should be suspicious of state authoritarianism, after a state of war in the absence of a functioning civil society where the rule of law cannot be enforced by civilian police, certain authoritarian measures of the state may be justified because they protect individual safety and property rights even if freedom is constrained. Regarding PRO's reference to John Stewart Mill's essential liberties, I am therefore compelled to remind him that it is not necessary for me, as CON, to argue that government which comes at the expense of individual liberty is 'always' justified. Rather, I must only argue, as I have, that the imposition of authoritarian rule is 'sometimes' justified in response to particular situations, such as in the aftermath of war or a disaster where civil society's guarantee of freedom is lost to the extent that civilian police officers cannot enforce and impose the rule of law. As such, where the rule of law is lost, as it could be in the aftermath of war or disaster, freedom that is guaranteed by law is lost because the law is unenforceable. That places humans in a state of nature, in the absence of a common authority to which individuals are subject, and thereby necessitates authoritarianism until civil society can be restored in defense of property rights and to protect the security of persons. That being the case, though my opponent can compellingly argue that authoritarianism violated Mill's essential liberties (assuming that under normal circumstances people are entitled to them), that argument does not mean that authoritarianism is never justified. Rather, it means that if government is going to curtail individual freedom, it must have a very good reason; to employ PRO's standard, it must be "right" or "defensible." But, as the case in the aftermath of war or calamity, freedom may be "present," in that there is no restriction on human activity by any government in the absence of the rule of law's being enforced, there is likewise no government to prevent others from violating anyone else's freedom; said another way, the strong can do what they can, and the weak will have no choice to accept what they must. To prevent the strong from abusing the weak in this state of nature, government must impose order until the rule of law is restored. Authoritarianism, then, is freedom's midwife in the aftermath of calamity. But, that is not to say that once civil society has rebuilt and restored itself that the curtailment of freedom is in any way justified. This is because for a society to be just, it must protect and uphold individual rights that individuals may pursue happiness. The resolution is, therefore, negated. (It is with some amusement that I observe CON ended his only round of argumentation in the same way. Perhaps it was a Freudian slip, but perhaps not.)