Vigilantism is Justified when the Government Fails to Enforce the Law

I will start in the Negative and Move to the Affirmative We both agree on the value and definition of Justice so I do not feel that this needs to be addressed. On to my opponents criterion he essentially tells us that "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." Look this a really good idea, the government fails, the government is replaced. The people have a right to revolt here, I agree, however they also have a right to self-preservation and the preservation of others. This right may actually come first. First you must stabilize the society, via vigilantism, then you can move on to fix it, either by vigilantism as I show in my contention 2 or by revolution. On to my Opponents contention one He contends that in a revolution "the group as a whole will elect person(s) who, several people will agree, are qualified to carry out the law." I have a couple of responses to this. First this is not what a revolution necessarily is. Revolution is simply the citizens rising up to overthrow a governing body; it makes no claim as to the process. Second, this is non-unique as it can apply to vigilantism as well. My opponent tries to contend that vigilantism merely is a "single person deeming themselves the law" if we take this argument and look at this same thing except focusing on revolution you will find that revolution is "a group determining that they are the correct law." However my opponent's logic here is flawed and this is not what vigilantism is. Let's look at the situations in which I have the burden to justify vigilante actions. First, the government has failed to enforce the law. Second, the Vigilante must actually enforce THE LAW, not his own skewed version of justice. Otherwise he is not a person taking the law into his own hands but somebody deciding what is the law. Saying the two are the same would be like saying the executive and legislative branches are the same branch. I will address how vigilantism can be revolution when I look at my case. And off of contention two This contention really has no purpose in this debate. My opponent gives one example of a good revolution and one example of bad actions that may or may not actually be within the resolution. We are not debating whether there are more good vigilantes or bad vigilantes as that would be entirely pointless, but rather is vigilantism justified as a general rule when the government fails to enforce the law. On to the Affirmative flow My opponent contends that "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." However this has no logical grounding in my case, or at all for that matter. If I punished criminals and thus deterred crime I would be providing for the security of the entire community. A police officer can protect us without the community stepping in. why is a vigilante when the police have failed any different? My only real Burden is to show a net PRESERVATION of security by vigilantism. I agree to the terms of my analysis my opponent has set. My opponent groups my first contentions so I will address this grouping and then address each individually. My opponent makes the argument that ". If the community is working together as a whole to fix a problem, then it is simply NOT vigilantism" and warrants this by using the definition of vigilantism. However first of all if I am an individual and take the law into my own hands I am a vigilante and my action is classified as vigilantism. If I work together with others, I am still an individual that takes the law into my own hands, thus a vigilante. A police Officer is an individual who enforces the law according to government statutes. Does that mean that if he is part of a police department he cannot be a police officer anymore? Of course not. My opponents' points are logically flawed and I ask that they be dropped from the flow. My contention one shows that Vigilantism strengthens and preserves the community by apprehending criminals and preserving social order. This alone fulfills my burden. We Affirm. My contention two gives a real example of when an action, classified as vigilantism, spurs reform because of the benefits to the community and the pressure on the government. Vigilantism then, is almost a kind of revolution because it acts as almost a vote of no confidence and forces the government to either reform or be disbanded and have a new one rise up as we saw in my example. Because it reforms a failing system it preserves the community and its security, from near anarchy to legitimate government, we affirm on this contention as well. On to Contention 3 My opponent makes two arguments here. His Wal-Mart example and his attack on self-interest. I will start on the first. In a purely free market system, Wal-Mart is a monopoly, or at least close to one. Applying this to the resolution a monopoly in the world of vigilantism is called a government. When people band together to form a social monopoly, the beginning of a new legitimate government is formed. There is a reason a government is said to have a "monopoly" on force. Like an economic monopoly it controls the distribution of its product. When a society obtains this monopoly it creates rules for the distribution of this force, it creates police forces and a military. In other words it is a government. The Second part is actually not an attack but a restatement of my point. In this state many people will work for themselves. However they will realize that their own interests are best served via cooperation, they are made safer than they otherwise would be. When the government fails, the citizen and the community has no choice. It must maintain itself. This means preserving social order and the security of the community. How can the citizenry do this? By enforcing the otherwise unenforced laws, that is, vigilantism. To make sure criminals receive their due and others are deterred from crime. Thus we affirm