Vigilantism is justified when the government fails to enforce the law -- strictly LD

sorry formating got screwed up a little. I affirm. Resolved, vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. Black's Law dictionary defines vigilantism: The act of a citizen who takes the law into his or her own hands by apprehending and punishing suspected criminals. For clarity I observe that we must interpret the resolution as the government in a general breakdown because the words THE LAW in the resolution imply the general body of law and a government that has failed to enforce that large a segment of law must be in breakdown. The value premise is justice as implied by the resolution. The value criterion is maximizing government efficacy. This criterion means we are looking to who can best restore or improve government. This is links to justice because a government can effectively stop anarchy. Gregory Kavka explains the harms of an anarchy, "…[W]ithout…common power over them …[people] are in a state of war [...] Lacking a system of law enforcement, they cannot expect potential attackers to be effectively deterred by fear of counter-violence. …Nor can one expect potential attackers-whose altruism is…limited-to refrain from attack…Thus, each person…. must fear…others who may attack for…three reasons. First, glory seekers …attack simply because they enjoy conquest. Second, competitors may attack to remove…an obstacle to ….their desires. Third…even "moderate" people… may attack to remove one as a potential…threat" End quote. Anarchy has the greatest possible harms and I limit it through government efficacy. My first contention is that fear of vigilantes gives the government incentive to enforce law. A government needs to quell vigilantism because it is a threat to the government's monopoly on force which is the basis of its power. Daniel Nina affirms, "…normative concepts of community…impact on…the…elements of the state: that of its…sovereign functions to guarantee a[n]… order. The role of the state embodies the protection of its…monopoly on the use of violence. It is…the monopoly on the use of violence where vigilantism clashes with the sovereign powers of the state… Vigilantism appropriates state functions in a way that creates a parallel sovereign power…". Daniel Nina Published in African Security Review Vol 9 No 1, 2000 END QUOTE. Vigilantism constitutes a violation of the government monopoly on force, which is the ultimate incentive for a government to respond to vigilantism. And Peter Sederberg and Jon Rosenbaum show how the governments will deal with vigilantism, quote "In order to stabilize a situation [with] vigilante…violence…a regime may address some of the underlying causes of the…challenges, in an attempt to mollify some of these latter groups without seriously threatening the established groups" Rosenbaum, H. John and Peter C Sederberg. "Vigilantism: An Analysis of Establishment Violence." Vigilante Politics. H. John Rosenbaum and Peter C. Sederberg, ed.. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1976 End quote. In summary, vigilantism spurs government reform. This is because governments have a need to quell vigilantism as it violates the monopoly on force so they will stop it by addressing the underlying causes. In this case, actually prosecuting the criminals as vigilantes became vigilantes since the government was not prosecuting criminals. Thus the impacts are twofold: FIRSTLY: The government will be forced to prosecuting crimes again and become an effective sovereign. SECONDLY: The initial complaint against the government, that they were not dealing with crime, is now solved so government regains obedience. My second contention is that vigilantism stops corruption in government. These government corrupt officials are hard to prosecute because: 1) Officials like the president or governor have immunity from prosecution. 2) Government officials can get out of prosecution since they would have to be prosecuted by the government which they have influence in. 3) The people who would have to stop them are part of the government and wouldn't expose officials as corrupt since it would humiliate their establishment. Vigilantism solves for this inability to stop corrupt officials because vigilantes are not part of the government so they won't be influenced by the politics or be worried about embarrassment. The costs of the corruption vigilantism halts are twofold: FIRSTLY: In today's world being known as corrupt ruins a countries reputation. Ambassador Sue M. Cobb at the meeting of the American Chamber of Commerce spoke, "Once corruption is associated with a certain person, company, government, or country, it is difficult to shed the stigma. Think about this: Standard and Poor's gives investors a 50 to 100 percent chance of losing their entire investment within five years in countries with corruption. Would you invest in a company or a country that is rumored or known to be corrupt? Would you knowingly associate yourself with a person tainted by corruption? I would not and I suspect you would not."END QUOTE. The stigma that being corrupt casts on a country stops it from ever having real international relation with other countries, so they can never get investments for public works, or get diplomatic recognition and allies which are necessary. Secondly: Corruption plunges a country into poverty. Axel Dreher and Thomas Herzfeld write "…[M]ore than US$ 1 trillion is paid in bribes each year and that countries that tackle corruption…. could increase…income… by 400 percent…. Based on a sample on approximately 100 countries covering five different time periods… losses due to corruption…. been increasing in transition economies…[for example] Guinea-Bissau is the world's most corrupt country with a loss of almost 70 percent of its potential GDP." The Economic Costs of Corruption: A Survey and New Evidence Axel Dreher and Thomas Herzfeld June 2005 Corruption especially in countries that are in a bad state as in the resolution, decimate income leading to a country in poverty and decreasing the tax revenue the government desperately needs. And an additional impact of poverty, impacting back to the utilitarian underpinnings of my vc is that poverty leads to massive death: Kangas 1996 [Steve, outspoken political scientist, "Myth: Poor people and minorities are committing the most crime." online @ http://www.huppi.com...] Poverty also kills. The American Journal of Epidemiology reports that "a vast body of evidence has shown consistently that those in the lower classes have higher mortality, morbidity, and disability rates." (19) This is because the poor suffer more polluted, stressful and unsafe work and living environments; they have less preventative health care, less post-health care, less education about safety and health issues, less nutritious meals, less creature comforts like heating or air-conditioning, less recreational opportunities, less tools to ease their standard of living, less isolation from sick and infected people, and less contact with people who could direct them to solutions…. Some might object that America's poor are significantly richer than the poor of other countries. However, researchers have discovered that it is not only absolute poverty that kills, but relative poverty as well! Drs. Bruce Kennedy, Ichiro Kawachi and Deborah Prothrow-Stith conducted a study at the Harvard School of Public Health that found that the gap between the rich and the poor matters. "We found that mortality was strongly related to inequality in the distribution of income, but not to the median income or per capita income of a state," says Kennedy. (22) States with the most income inequality had higher death rates of heart disease, cancer, homicide, tuberculosis, pneumonia and high blood pressure."