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

Her Value Criterion Is John Rawls Theory of Justic/Social contract "no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance."According to Rawls, ignorance of these details about oneself will lead to principles that are fair to all.f an individual does not know how he will end up in his own conceived society, he is likely not going to privilege any one class of people, but rather develop a scheme of justice that treats all fairly. In particular, Rawls claims that those in the Original Position would all adopt a maxim in strategy which would maximize the position of the least well-off."They are the principles that rational and free persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamentals of the terms of their association "Rawls It is important to keep in mind that the agreement that stems from the original position is both hypothetical and nonhistorical. It is hypothetical in the sense that the principles to be derived are what the parties would, under certain legitimating conditions, agree to, not what they have agreed to. In other words, Rawls seeks to persuade us through argument that the principles of justice that he derives are in fact what we would agree upon if we were in the hypothetical situation of the original position and that those principles have moral weight as a result of that. It is nonhistorical in the sense that it is not supposed that the agreement has ever, or indeed could actually be entered into as a matter of fact. Thus her whole case is irrelevant and based off an invalid VC. First off I still disagree with her definitions and offer the following Vigilantism occurs when a person violates the law in order to exact what they believe to be justice from criminals, because they think that the criminal will not be caught or will not be sufficiently punished by the legal system. The Government refers to the United States government and its checks and balances. Including the judiciary, Executive, and legislative branches. Her second contention lacks any warrants on its extensions and violates the burden of the case. Specifying a few instances of where vigilantism is acceptable is a huge ground skew, as well a predictability skew.The burden doesn't even function under you defending multiple instances, you could win off of extending anyone of them. That's also a reciprocity issue, there would be no turn ground on that AC, because even if in one scenario vigilatism is bad, if it's ok in another it's justified. Further, I don't even think that interp is true, the qualifier is "when the government fails to act" not just debate about vague instances of vigilantism Her third contention lacks warrants. This is an extension as well as response using my contention 1) However, in the example of the Swedish ATC emotions/pain were there and vigilantism ended violently in the death of a inoncent man. There was no judge, no jury, only an executioner. I would like to point out my entire case was dropped. For this debate my value will be justice. Justice is meant more for the society as a whole than for the individual victims because it is designed to prove repeatedly that people are safe within their society. My value criterion is Protecting Rights Vigilantism offers no protections of due process rights, no checks on cruel or unusual punishment, no accountability to any exterior force. Suspects--or even known criminals--are still humans, deserving of fair trials and humane treatment. Vigilantism doesn't protect rights and by not protecting rights it is not justice and w/o justice we don't preserve life and w/o life we are all dead. Extreme example maybe but it gets a point across. Contention 3) Anarchy Anarchists are those who advocate the absence of the state, arguing that common sense would allow people to come together in agreement to form a functional society allowing for the participants to freely develop their own sense of morality, ethics or principled behaviour. Common sense does not exist. What you think is common knowledge or common sense, I may not think. The same is with justice. Vigilantism promotes anarchy because there are now jurors, no judges, no rights. But when we protect the rights people are safe and vigilantism is not the way to do this. Seeing as my whole case was dropped under her either misunderstanding my case or just not thinking. I see no reason but to vote neg because Vigilantism is not justified when the government fails to enforce the law due to the fact we have to protect the rights and uphold justice.