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

I would like to debate in LD format. Thanks! "Since the governments are in the pockets of businesses, who's going to control this most powerful institution? Business is more powerful than politics, and it's more powerful than religion. So it's going to have to be the vigilante consumer." It is because I agree with Anita Roddick that I affirm the resolved, vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. For clarity I offer the following definitions: Vigilantism: one who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands Justified: to prove or show to be what is just by the maintenance or administration of what is just based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, fairness, and equity Government: the offices of a nation/political unit being responsible for direction/supervision of public affairs Failed: a state of inability to perform a normal function Enforcement: to give force or effect to (a law, etc.); to compel obedience to The Law: the body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system: international law. I offer the following observations for further clarity: 1) The resolution states that the government is not upholding the law, meaning the vigilante is upholding and enforcing the law in a justified way. 2) My second observation concerns the definition of ‘vigilantism.' Classic vigilantes, according to the American University Law Review: 1. Are members of an organized committee 2. Are established members of a community 3. Proceed with definite goals, not with the intension of random violence 4. Act as a last resort because of a failure of the established law system 3) The resolution uses the word when as opposed to if. This indicates that these failures to enforce the law by the government are already taking place. My value for the round shall be that of justice. Justice can be defined as the maintenance or administration of what is just based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, fairness, and equity. Affirming achieves the value of justice because of the word justified in the resolution as this word is a derivative of just or justice so this value is explicit in the resolution and any other value would be irrelevant to answering the question of the resolution as no other value would ensure people are receiving their due. In order to achieve justice in the resolution, it is only just that vigilantism is acceptable in the case that the government fails to enforce the law. Justice is a key feature of a well-based society because justice concerns the proper ordering of people and things in a society. The value criterion for the debate is upholding autonomy. Autonomy is the right to self- government. Upholding individual autonomy--including the ability to exercise judgment in going after criminals--is a necessary route to justice when the government has failed to enforce the law. Autonomy leads any sort of societal or law-and-order consideration, because it is the foundation of human rights and societal order. My first contention is Socrates' quote, "Nothing is to be preferred before justice." This shows that justice is more important than law. The law is only a way of attaining justice, and nothing more. When the law is failed to be enforced, justice must still be attained. We attain justice by upholding autonomy through vigilantism. Thus, it is seen that vigilantism ultimately leads to justice in any society, and so vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. My second contention is the history of vigilantism. I would like to bring up an example of vigilantism and explain why it was beneficial in a just way. The Big Sword Society was a group of farmers that originated in southwestern Shandong after the second Sino-Japanese War, when the country side was in anarchy and widespread with robberies. These vigilantes protected lives and property. They defended villages from roaming bandits, warlords, tax collectors, and later communists and the Japanese. This group of vigilantes saved lives and properties when the government failed to. They punished the criminals to attain justice for the village. This clearly shows us that vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. My third contention is the Social Contract. The government is a contract between a country's government and its citizens. Citizens sacrifice some liberty so the government can maintain societal order and protect the citizens. The contract upon which all governments are based states that if the government properly enforces the law, citizens will abide by the laws. But, when the law is not enforced, as in the resolved, it is illegitimate and the citizens then have the authority to do what they think is just. When the government has failed to enforce the law citizens can exercise their autonomy to attain justice. So, according to the Social Contract vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. I now stand open for cross examination.