vigilantism is justified when government fails to act

Capitalized taglines / important stuff. I affirm. VIGILANTISM, as defined by black's law dictionary, is the "the act of a citizen who takes the law into his own hands by apprehending and punishing criminals". Note the resolution is justifying the act of taking the law into one's own hands, not the extent to which the vigilante does so. Obviously we can't predict the result or extent of every act of vigilantism, instead simply the act of vigilantism is what we are attempting to prove justified or unjustified. WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED TO ENFORCE... means that: a)The government has failed to punish a criminal. Note that while the resolution only explicitly states A, if a person is a criminal then logically they have to have committed a crime so the resolution also tells us that: b)There was a criminal who committed a crime. From this we can observe that the resolution gives us the brightline between whether a crime was committed or it wasn't, and it is not up to the perception of the vigilante but rather objective truth tells us that the crime was committed. THE LAW means the system of punishment set up by the hypothetical society. The law in this resolution is not interpreted by the vigilante, rather it is a pre-existing standard that can either be met or not. The Value is Justice, or giving each their individual due. The Value Criterion is the Protection of Social Order First: Social order and law require each other to exist. Peter Wall writes, "If law and government are independent, then you can have one without the other: law without government, or government without law. If we assume some broad definitions for law and government—that law is an ordered system of behavioral norms and government is an exercise of power over others—then government without law would be a capricious exercise of power and law without government would produce a society where behavioral norms are followed so thoroughly that no enforcement is needed. In other words, if law and government can each exist independently and wholly without the other, then history should reveal some societies that are irrational and capricious dictatorships and some where hierarchy is utterly pointless because every member of the society already knows how to behave, and behaves that way. But no society looks like either of those", so we can conclude that law and government play a role that is intrinsically linked; government needs law to function, as law maintains social order, and law needs a government to enforce it or it becomes ineffective. Thus actions that protect social order, or actions that carry out the law will inherently strengthen the force of that law. Second: Law is necessary in ensuring justice. The purpose of law is to administer justice and to deter criminals from committing more crimes. Obviously if law acts a deterrent in structured societies and there are still crimes, then in an anarchical society where there is no deterrent factor for crimes then more of them would happen. Thus, by protecting the efficacy of the law one also preserves the inherent justness of that society. Third: Thus, actions that promote social order and stability are inherently more just than actions that do not; insofar as an unjust action that promotes social order protects law, whereas a just action that does not strengthen social order diminishes the efficacy of that law. Quantitatively, a single action being unjust does not outweigh the benefits of strengthening the efficacy of the law that cross-applies to every being within a society. Thus the case is structured around the following syllogism, the major premise being Vigilantes are empowered to protect social order, the minor premise being that Vigilantism protects social order. MAJOR PREMISE: VIGILANTES ARE EMPOWERED TO PROTECT SOCIAL ORDER A.An individual always retains the right of self-defense John Locke writes, "Men can never be secure from tyranny if there be no means to escape it…thus a thief, for having stolen all that I am worth, I may kill when he sets on me to rob me; because the law, which was made for my preservation, where it cannot interpose to secure my life from present force…because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to our judge. Want of a…judge puts all men in a state of nature." Thus, when the law is absent, actions that threaten and individual may be punished under the right of self defense. In order to prove vigilantes are empowered the first criteria is met, and that is they retain the right to act in their own preservation. The second criteria is simply that vigilantes do act in their preservation, and this is met by: B.Crimes threaten the individual Crimes, by their very nature, destabilize society. As Locke writes earlier, "Want of a judge puts all men in a state of nature." Matthew Herbert outlines the threat to each individual in the state of nature. He writes, "In the state of nature unregulated violence is a fact of life. The strong subjugate the weak, and power shifts unpredictably as alliances form and dissolve. It is an enervating chaos of constant attack and defense." Thus, everyone is in danger in the state of nature, and so by acting to eliminate that state of nature the individual acts in own interests of self-preservation which is justified under the right of self-defense. This being the second criteria for meeting the major premise of my syllogism, one can assume the major premise is met. Thus we move to the: MINOR PREMISE: VIGILANTISM PRESERVES SOCIAL ORDER Crimes threaten social order. Society can only flourish if the rights of individuals are protected, and thus those individuals work to maintain the institutions that protect their rights. Law is placed to protect the rights of individuals. We can determine the purpose of law to maintain order instead of to maintain morality because laws do not obligate citizens to behave morally; I can legally spit and swear at every homeless person I see, crushing their already weakened emotional state. I cannot, however, pick up that homeless person and throw him through a window, because that would threaten order. So at that point we can conclude that vigilantes, by acting to punish crimes, also punish the actors of perpetrate acts against society. By protecting against those that threaten social order, vigilantes and vigilantism inherently promotes social order. Moreover, by punishing criminals vigilantes prevent future acts from occurring. Crimes aren't an isolated thing, Christopher Manfredi writes, "A recent survey of 654 federal inmates found that this sample of current federal inmates averaged 29.5 convictions each. Moreover, 75% of the sample had amassed more than ten convictions during their criminal careers. The sample also included a significant number of inmates with more than FIFTY convictions each (13.5% of the sample)." At that point, we can conclude that criminal nature leads not to a single isolated act, but rather to several, so by punishing a criminal once a vigilante stops future actions that threaten the order of society. Thus, affirm. I now stand ready for cross-examination.