Vigilantism is Justified when govermnment has failed to enforce the law 2

i offer the following definitions for clarification. Vigilante-any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime; done violently and summarily, without recourse to lawful procedures Justify-to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded Government-the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc. , is governed Enforce-to impose Value: Peace which shall be defined as avoiding a state of nature or total government collapse Value Criterion: Governmental Legitimacy. Contention 1: Effort Vigilantism is a short-term solution; my opponent can agree that a long-term application of vigilantism in any situation wouldn't solve crime, as violence perpetuates violence. Also, such a system would depend on vigilantism ALWAYS being morally correct and perfect, and at that point, there's no need for law or government anyway, since individuals would be. .. next to Christ-like. Ignoring that line of argumentation, the only real solution would be to put effort into rebuilding a NEW government or REFORMING the old one. Otherwise, you undermine the government's ability to rule, and we fall into a Hobbesian state of nature. Contention 2: Naturalistic Fallacy The resolution states that the government only needs to fail to enforce the law to justify vigilantism. But, is vigilantism justified when the law isn't good? My opponent has assumed that all laws are good and righteous, when I can easily point out such things as Jim Crow laws. Does my opponent REALLY want to stoop to that level? If he does, then: A) He agrees the government doesn't have to support Jim Crow laws. Oh, then all laws aren't justified then. And, therefore, vigilantism isn't justified (sometimes) when the government fails to enforce the law. That's conditional affirmation. He loses. B) He says that a vigilante wouldn't support such laws. My opponent fails to take groups like the KKK into consideration. C) He finally admits that such laws would have to be enforced, for whatever reason. My opponent has no moral standing. He's freely advocating, at this point, a government that freely abuses and dehumanizes certain members of society. And, at that point, there's no point in the law for those members of society. D) He says Jim Crow laws don't count; I need a broader view. How about China's One-Child policy? Should vigilantes enforce THAT law if the government fails to do so? It gets worse and worse from here on out. Contention 3: Social Contract Theory A government's job is to represent the people's best interests; the reason we concede power to it is because it NEEDS that power to protect our interests. Therefore, we also put power into the GOVERNMENT to decide when and where to enforce the law. It is not the right of the people to choose when and where to support the government's decision; otherwise, my opponent is directly choosing a state of nature, with no government. I already said why that's bad; that's why peace is my value. Contention 4: Overkill Okay. Obviously, the resolution has stated that the "jury" part of due process has failed to work. I'm fine with that; it's the single advantage (for all intents and purposes) that the affirmative has. The other part of due process is the punishment. The resolution only says that vigilantism is justified; we have no clue what such a person could do. Let's say the government decides that a shoplifter (a single mother in poverty) doesn't have to pay a fine or spend jail time. At that point, the government has failed to enforce the law. Let's say Joe Brown, our vigilante, comes up and brutally murders the girl to "enforce" the law. This is clearly wrong and unnecessary. For these reasons I encourage a negative vote.