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

I negate, "Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law." I define: Justified doesn't necessarily mean "just" it simply means permissible. Stealing an apple to keep myself from starvation would be justified, however not just. Thus, an action may be unjustified but still just – so on and so forth. Value is Societal Progression. Essentially, evolution of human values, political and economic structure, and human thought on a societal scale. This is the ultimate value in the round as it solves for two main problems: 1)Insofar as each step forward society makes is a step towards morality, justice, etc. if society does not progress then one can only uphold these notions as best they can within a faulty system. 2) If the hypothetical state cannot progress then one assumes the failure to enforce the law will still actively occur and will not be changed. The resolution requires a change of the status quo for any impacts to be weighed; otherwise they are moot as the harms deriving from the current system are repeated indefinitely. The Value Criterion is Social Revolution. Social revolution is necessary for society to progress. Modern capitalism and democracy is a direct result of revolution across the world. I maintain all social progress, especially en masse progress (i.e. structural shifts as outlined in the value) is a direct or indirect result of some form of revolution, be it an intellectual or physical one. In the words of Emma Goldman, "No real social change has ever been brought about without a revolution - Revolution is but thought carried into action" The criterion stands unless the affirmative can prove that society can progress without some revolution in thought or action. Contention One: Vigilantism stifles revolution through punishment A.Crimes are inherently political Warrant: Crimes are actions that reject the current legal structure of the state. All actions that are political crimes (treason, assassination) are obviously political, but even crimes that are undertaken for other motives are still inherently political. Crimes are a rejection of the current political structure, they feel the law should not apply in said circumstance and so criminals commit a crime because they do not respect the legitimacy of that law. Rejection of law and actions that derive from that are political revolutions in and of themselves as they act to destroy the efficacy of the current system. Link: Vigilantes punish criminals. Impacts: 1) vigilantes punish political criminals, thus direct stifling of social revolution. 2) Vigilantes punish criminals whose actions are inherently political revolutions, thus stifling a larger social revolution. B.Political revolutions require some form of government inadequacy Warrant: Political motions do not succeed unless there is some failure by current political structure. Movements like the civil rights movement cannot succeed unless the government fails to stop them; insofar as black oppression would never have been brought to the public eye if every sit-in and peace rally had been dispersed instantaneously, rather political movements that partially succeed bring their revolution to the public, and thus can be enacted adequately. Fully efficient punishment allows no revolutionary say from the subjects of a state and they will never achieve anything. Link: Vigilantism strengthens the efficacy of the government by punishing those the government cannot. Impact: Political revolutions cannot be effectively undertaken when vigilante actions occur, as vigilantism stifles motions that require some failure to occur. If political revolutions cannot occur then social revolution cannot occur. Contention Two: The Status Quo does not allow for revolution Warrant: The Status Quo and revolution are incompatible by definition. The warrant is clear; the status quo is what is, the way things work now and revolution is the redefinition of the way things work. Essentially, the status quo is the beginning. The revolution melts down the status quo, eliminates it, and then establishes a new status quo. An action (in this case, revolution) that eliminates a structure cannot occur simultaneously with the existence of that which it destroys. A vacuum eliminates air, after a bag has been vacuum sealed it no longer contains air; to argue that the status quo and revolution are compatible is to argue that after vacuum sealing a bag that bag is still full of air. Link: Vigilantism promotes the status quo by strengthening the current system. Through strengthening the law, we automatically strengthen the organization that develops that law, and reaffirm the legitimacy of that organization's existence. Thus, vigilantism, by punishing criminals and carrying out the law, promotes the legitimacy of that law and thus the status quo. Impact: Vigilantism, through promoting the status quo, eliminates any revolution. It reaffirms a system incompatible with change, and at that point social revolution cannot occur. Through affirmation of the current structure vigilantism by its very nature does not allow for revolution to occur. As for the AC: Observation one is abusive (insofar as it automatically affirms with no room to negate) and is unwarranted (he gives no reasoning for why they're justified.) ignore this observation. Two is fine. Assume the value of Societal Progression to be more important that justice. You can cross-apply both problems I outline that are solved by societal progression to this; if you value justice and do not progress as a society you: A) HAVE to operate within a faulty system and can only uphold justice to the best of that flawed system, thus justice can never be achieved without social progression except to a flawed extent - social progression allows the betterment of all human values AND mankind at that point you clearly defer to the value of societal progression. B) All impacts are useless unless change is implemented; insofar as you're only attacking the symptoms of a flawed system by prosecuting but not changing the system the harms repeat indefinitely. If we do not value societal progression we are essentially giving a lung cancer patient cough medicine and calling it a cure. The criterion: 1) Can be ignored because it's impossible for him to link into with his value of justice. Look to what I just wrote, he can never solve the problems of the current society unless he progresses that society, so you drop him at face because his value criterion has no way to be achieved through his advocacy. 2) Can only be achieved through social revolution. A well-ordered society is one that is okay with the rules it obeys, otherwise they won't listen to the rules of society. obviously the society in question is NOT okay (insofar as the government sucks at protecting them, and that they're committing crimes) and so revolution is required to create the society in question. He provides no way to solve for the problem of unrest among citizens of this society, so you drop him again and defer to the negative. C1: Contention one invalidates the legitimacy of the government, which does two things: A) doesn't justify the actions of the vigilante, it simply says the government sucks. That's not justification, he gives you no warrants just an assertion. Moreover, this assertion is wrong; if the social contract is broken in the status quo and he's advocating maintenance of that then he's constantly advocating a flawed society with no way to change. B) he agrees revolution is necessary by admitting the illegitimacy of the government, thus he concedes this to the negative. Cross apply negative impacts here. C2: I don't care. This doesn't need a rebuttal, it's another assertion: Cross apply the impacts of vigilantism - while they may have been well intentioned, they stifled social revolution imperative to solving social problems.