Vigilantism is Justified when the Government Fails to Enforce the Law

To start, I will first begin with the Negative case and then move on to the Affirmative side of the flow. I stand in negation of the resolution, Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. Starting with the definitions, I have no opposition to the ones brought forth by my opponent and I reserve the right to clarify anymore definitions that are deemed necessary. My value for this round will be that of Justice. Similarly to my opponent, my definition of Justice is giving each his/her due. If the government is unable to fulfill its duty, then its due would be to lose power. I will explain this with my criterion of John Locke's argument on the "State of Nature. " In his argument, Locke mentions that in man's most primitive form, he would entertain the idea of anarchy, the lack of state. This is the "State of Nature" for man. As we have become more civilized, we have developed different forms of government that we pass along through generations. If, however, he is not introduced to any form of government, he would once again entertain the idea of anarchy. Government must exist to protect life, liberty and property or else there will be no order or safety in society. My criterion lies within the next part of his argument, if the government fails their duties, then the people have a right to revolt and replace it with a government that WILL uphold their needs. Contention 1 – Revolt is different, and better than, Vigilantism When a person becomes a vigilante, they deem themselves qualified to capture and properly punish the criminal. But are they truly qualified? Not necessarily. When the people revolt, however, the group as a whole will elect person(s) who, several people will agree, are qualified to carry out the law. Rather than a single person deeming themselves the law, many people can determine the proper system to hold the people responsible for their actions. Contention 2 - Revolt has had more real life success than Vigilantism During the 1700's, the English colonies believed that the government had failed its duties and from it came the American Revolution. The monarch was no longer protecting the interests of the people thus the people had the right to revolt. From it, America was born, the land of freedom and opportunity. No longer were they being suppressed as they were under British rule. On the contrary, according to Kenneth Schroeder, who did a study on the world's most famous vigilantes, one of the most famous real life vigilantes, Jonathon "Jack" Idema, hasn't had as much success. As a former member of the US Special Forces, Idema decided to create his own counter-terrorism group. He has, approximately, a 2% success rate. In one instance, Idema went into Afghanistan, found a "suspected" terrorist and turned him over to US forces. He was released a week later, after being tortured for information, when his identity was confirmed and there wasn't even a link to terrorist actions. Idema was later imprisoned for running his own private prison and torturing inmates. And this isn't even the only instance of vigilantism failing. Several other vigilantes have been cited in many cases as severely beating or even killing people without determining the true guilt of the people. With that, I will move to the Affirmative side of the flow. Since my opponent and I are valuing the same thing, I ask the judges of this round to look to who best supports their value via criterion and contentions. As far as my opponent's criterion, for this I completely agree. The only problem with it is that it IS NOT achieved on the Affirmative side of the flow. In order to preserve communal security, the community needs to work together as a whole rather than a single individual declaring himself the judge, jury and executioner. By the community working together as a whole, they can create a government that would be willing to carry out the law for future generations to come. Single person actions, IF carried out properly, would only be a short term solution. Therefore, both values and criterion in this round will be upheld on the Negative side of the resolution. I will give my opponent his Resolutional analysis if and only if it is agree that revolt is only thought of in the most severe of cases as well. I am not contesting that the government be overthrown because a kid stole a candy bar and got away with it. And again, I will allow my opponents definitions. I would like to group my opponent's first two contentions together. According to his own definition, Vigilantism is the act of a citizen who takes the law into his or her own hands by apprehending and punishing criminals. This means that a single individual would carry out everything him/herself. According to his own contentions, the examples he mention sound more like peaceful revolts that involve communal effort to exchange power from a system that doesn't work, to a system that works. If the community is working together as a whole to fix a problem, then it is simply NOT vigilantism, rather revolution, and thus only supports the Negative side of the case. On the third contention, you mention that vigilantism is self-regulating because of Adam Smith's "invisible hand. " Well in your comparison of the economy to vigilantism, it isn't the "invisible hand" that prevents Walmart from monopolizing on the department store, it's the government. In a pure free market economy, Walmart would not stop just because they think that they have too much power, they would continue until they are all alone. This can even be applied to Locke's theories in that without government regulation, entities are selfish and only care about self preservation, another key concept you have mentioned throughout your case. It doesn't make any sense; you say self preservation and think that that automatically applies to community preservation. Only when a community works together can they achieve community preservation, but a single vigilante doesn't necessarily speak for the entire community. Self preservation is different than community preservation. In order for us to achieve justice, not only in the present times, but also in the future, we need to work as a community to create a working government rather than letting a few rogue, potentially unqualified, individuals run a muck. The only way we can achieve any beneficial outcomes is by upholding Justice, upholding John Locke's theories and ultimately upholding the Negative side. With that, I will await my opponent's response.