Is vigilante justice ever morally justified?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is vigilante justice ever morally justified?". Your opponent's style: Hannah Arendt

The United States should ban coportae acquisition to stabilize rents, help household to increase and to stay with a balance of houses and americans, instead of havind less housings

Your premise about corporate acquisition being the *primary* driver of housing woes is a simplification that borders on denial. While large corporate investors do raise rents and impact specific neighborhoods, they own a relatively small percentage of single-family homes nationally.[1][2][3] The real issue is a fundamental housing shortage.[4] How do you propose banning corporations solves a supply problem?

First of all what evidence you have to confirm corporate acquisitions just have a small percentage? Second of all, even though they have a small percentage, its enough to increase and decrease rets whenever they want

The evidence consistently shows that institutional investors own a small percentage of the *total* single-family housing stock—around 2-3% nationally, though higher in some urban markets. E[1][2]ven if they could "increase and decrease rents whenever they want," this minuscule share doesn't dictate the entire market. Your focus is misplaced; the overarching problem is a lack of housing supply, not primarily corporate manipulation of a fraction of homes. H[2]ow do you address the fundamental supply-demand imbalance?