Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

I will concede to my opponent's definitions, as well as my opponent's first and third observations, but I must point out a fault in my opponents logic in his second observation. My opponent seems to believe that the government in the resolution has failed to enforce all laws, stating that "failed to uphold the universal concept of law, instead of a single, unique law. " However, he misses the implications of the resolution by a long shot. Princeton Dictionary defines the law as "the collection of rules imposed by authority". Accordingly, whenever ANY law has failed to be enforced, the collection of rules (as an inclusive entity) has failed to be enforced, and therefore, the Affirmative must affirm that vigilantism is justified whenever any law is broken, because the abuse of that single rule is enough to detract from the collective entity of the law. That being said, my opponent's idea of total lawlessness is a valid situation for this debate; however, it being a single example, it will not pass as an exclusive standard by which this debate shall be judged. On to my case. Tell me this: Would you let an auto mechanic cut your hair? Would you let a custodian repair your transmission? Would you let a barber perform heart surgery on your sister? Common sense tells us: of course not. Why? Because, quite frankly, something is probably going to go wrong along the way. Just because you may need an operation, or a car repair, or even a haircut, doesn't mean that you should rush to the first unqualified person available to fix your problem, lest the be unnecessary harms made in the process. Likewise, if there is a problem with society, we must be sure that when we aim to fix the problem, we fix it in the way that will best benefit society, for the sake of the common good. Common sense tells us that some jobs take a bit more than a summary of the problem and a will to fix it. Common sense tells us that good intentions are ruined if their consequences are ultimately negative. And common sense urges us that if there's a job that needs doing, it needs to be done well and it needs to be done right, and in support of common sense and the common good, I stand in firm negation of the resolution that vigilantism in justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. The value that I shall uphold in this debate shall be justice. My opponent defines justice as "giving each his due". Although this does reflect the most basic principle of justice, it barely scratches the surface in accordance to the massive variables in the formula that is vigilantism. I will try to better explain how justice shall be obtained, then, by the Negative, which leads me to my value criterion. The criterion by which justice shall be measured in this debate shall stand as the maintenance of popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty is defined as "a doctrine in political theory that government is created by and subject to the true will of the people", and is basically the idea that because the government gains power through the consent of the people, it is the duty of the government to reflect . Note that the true will of the people is not always identical to the desires of the public, because the true will is a result of both the freedoms of the individual and the restrictions necessary for the maintenance of a just society. By this we must see that the acts of vigilantes often fail to reflect the true will of the people for a number of reasons, which leads me to my first contention. C1: Vigilantism is unjust because the actions of vigilantes often fail to coincide with the true will of the people. Vigilantes strive for swift and sure punishment: the problem, however, is that vigilante "justice" if often TOO swift and TOO sure. Vigilante "justice" offers no room for due process, and the decisions of guilt and magnitude of retribution are issued solely by the vigilante(s). This means that vigilante justice often fails to take into account the respect for human dignity and true justice demanded by popular sovereignty, and is therefore unjust, partly by fault of the ineptitude and inexperience of the vigilantes in interpreting the true will of the people. C2: Vigilantism cannot be justly used to enforce laws that in themselves are unjust. Often in society, a law arises that is unjust in itself. One example of this is a law that was in place during pre-Civil War times in America requiring that escaped slaves be returned to their owners upon discovery. It's obvious to see that this past law was additionally unjust, and for that reason that law enforcement officers of that era often intentionally failed to enforce this law. However, although the law enforcement officers refused to commit injustices themselves, there is no rationalization for the citizens to commit these atrocities themselves. Vigilantism simply cannot be justified under any circumstances when enforcing the law directly equates to injustice, because those injustices go directly against the need for progression and the respect for human dignity that popular sovereignty achieves. C3: Vigilantism is often unjust because vigilantes lack the necessary means to reform their victims or to repair their victim's actions. Unlike government systems, vigilante justice most often resorts to violent, physical measures as retribution for their victim's crimes. There is no reform of the victim attempted, no lesson has been taught, and if the punishments issued by the vigilante(s) do not kill the criminal, the victim is free to wreak havoc upon society. Vigilantes also cannot make reparative action for the criminal's actions, either directly through a mandate of community service nor indirectly through fining the criminal. Consequently, vigilantism ultimately opposes the maintenance of popular sovereignty because it opposes the progression that is an basic part of the true will of the people: it impedes the moral progression of the criminal by a lack of reform and additionally makes no effort to further society by repairing the negative impacts of criminal activity. C4: Governmental reform is the correct response to a lack of action against criminal activity. So far, we have established that vigilante "justice" fails to meet the standards of popular sovereignty, both because of the ineptitude of vigilantes' view of the true will of the people and because of the physical inability to ensure retribution that will further both the victim and society. The obvious solution is to reform the existing government. The whole job of politicians is to maintain the true will of the people. Therefore, reform of the existing government ensures that the deciding body has both the expertise and the physical ability to issue truly just punishments. On to my opponent's case. Considering the value of my opponent and that of my own are identical, I hold no contest to the issue of value. However, I must oppose my opponents affirmation that justice must be obtained by preserving autonomy, mainly because there is no line that judges harmful and helpful actions in my opponent's value criteria. I may very well choose to "self-govern" myself by shooting a man who attempts to steal a loaf of bread from a local supermarket, which obviously negatively impacts society. The idea of self-government does not distinguish between actions that are good or bad, and therefore my opponent's VC must be scrapped as a means by which to judge this round. My opponent's C1 states that vigilantism preserves autonomy. However, as I have just proved, preserving autonomy does not ensure a beneficial result, and my opponents C1 is refuted by the refutation of his VC. My opponent's C2 states that vigilantism restores the government. However, since autonomy is defined as the right to self-government, his C2 is directly contradictory to his VC, and must be scr