Vigilantism is justified when the government fails to enforce the law -- strictly LD

Standards: V: I never accepted anarchy, and I never conceded Kavka. Kavka says "anarchy bad." Well, sure anarchy is bad. I argued that not all governments failing to enforce the law will immediately default to anarchy. Kavka is just a bunch of impacts that the aff can't access if we don't buy his framework. C: The right to life clearly isn't the most important. Historical struggle for human rights is generally characterized by people who find quality of life to outweigh life itself. That was the purpose of quoting Patrick Henry. I can be physically alive, but in such torturous agony without liberty, security, etc. that being alive is no longer paramount. That's what I'm getting at. Besides, government efficacy doesn't link to the right to life, which is the more important reason to vote neg. Efficacy can lead to more human rights abuses, because government efficiency does not guarantee rights protection. The stability of the government's justice system, and its ability to protect equity, does. This is cold dropped by my opponent. ----------------------------------------------------- Voters: #1: Observation debate. Can't skate an issue I already covered. Body of law doesn't independently tell you why you should prefer his abusive framework. Body of law is inherently argued within my analysis, since you can still have laws going unenforced without the body of law being entirely compromised. Examples abound. I've listed quite a few of them, the US and minute men being one of them. My opponent asked for a single place. There you have it. I take the observation debate, which is devastating to most of the affirmative advocacy. If you believe that my opponent should have to argue against general vigilantism, and not just his choice of completely screwed over countries, then you will most likely vote negative, since anarchy can't carry through. His examples proving anarchy also become bogus, so a lot of the affirmative advocacy just sort of goes away, as well as quite a few arguments he made on my side of the flow. #2: Vigilantes cannot promote governmental change. I don't say that the government will fight back. I say that the government will try to reclaim its monopoly on justice, which is not the same as the government reverting to enforcement or improving enforcement. My opponent essentially put words into Nina's mouth. Not only that, but Nina's article that he cites is, in fact, opposed diametrically to vigilante justice. Nina says it can't work, and shouldn't exist. That's important. As for Rosenbaum & Sederberg, that quotation comes directly from their introduction, and is meant to clearly distinguish their article as a vigilante paper, not a revolutionary paper. The point is still the same: vigilantes and revolutionaries are two different things. One is meant to systemically change the government, while the other is meant to maintain the existing order. However, even if you don't buy some of the arguments I've made on the aff flow, look to the neg. In the truly corrupt governments that my opponent's case revolves around, vigilantes can't change the status quo, anyway. They are subject to ideological infighting, as theories of justice will collide without a central, mediating force to oversee them, and corrupt governments will use vigilantes to crush any sort of forward movement against them. That's what corrupt governments do—stay in illegitimate power. Extend all of Higazi, which clearly explains the corruption story. Quick side note: I didn't drop anything on the vigilantes not conflicting argument. I addressed the tag that my opponent assigned to his own card, but did read the card before responding. This card doesn't say that vigilantes won't conflict. It says that they strive to do certain things, like minimize victimization. The ideological struggles still exist, since "dominant social norms" isn't finite. Like, even if something is approved by the majority, that approval is skewed and flawed, as could be the norm itself. #3: Revolution. A. So, apparently, I misled my opponent somewhere in the debate to think that my D applied to legitimate governments. Allow me to repeat the tag of the contention to clarify: "The only solution to states with *corrupt* or *inept* justice systems is revolution." I hope that clears up the turn/contradiction. I never said that a legitimate state needs revolution. Clearly, they don't. As for more on the observation, I did respond to the claim that we don't know what type of government we are dealing with. Clearly, the affirmative seems to think we are only dealing with an extremely corrupt government, since his case flows entirely through anarchy and dysfunction. He shot himself in the foot here: if we don't know what type of government we are supposed to be arguing about, then his case should equally apply to first world nations that have vigilantes, as it has to apply to ALL governments which exhibit vigilantism. That's another reason to vote on the framework. He can't access anarchy for all governments that exhibit vigilantism. B. On revolution solving: my analysis on solvency was dropped, since my opponent merely characterized all of my analysis as me shouting: REVOLT! Not quite…in answer to his detailed non-solvency claims, I stated the following: revolution does solve more than vigilantism can for the simple reason that vigilantism doesn't cause change. In fact, it deters change, especially in the areas that need it most, like corrupt governments. As for the "nebulous" argument, word count limited me to answering it in the best way available, which was to answer it in combination with revolutions ending in worse governments. Any savvy reader will agree that saying "we don't know the outcome of revolution" and "the outcome of revolution could be bad" as essentially the same argument. In response, I said two things. First, I said that a worse government is still better than the harms associated with vigilantism. IE- we can always revolt again, because it will produce change. Second, I said that I fundamentally disagreed with the concept that most revolutions end badly. Poor governments are instilled for myriad reasons, which my analysis was meant to show. This was never addressed. You can't categorically blame revolution for bad governments, as history shows. If you could, then you'd have a hard time explaining why they worked for so many first world nations. #4: Vigilante groups routinely violate human rights. I seem to have upset my opponent by reeling off country names in RD 2 as examples of vigilantes who thoroughly abused human rights. Given my limited character space and the spreadage, I would have assumed it understandable, but luckily I can expound on examples in a rebuttal. I won't take up too much of your time, suffice to say that all of the examples I listed are of countries that were consumed by illegitimate vigilante justice, all of which ended the lives of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people illegitimately. I wasn't aware that Slavinia was a vigilantism hot spot, but I'll look into it. As for assuming a state has a formal justice system, the point of the round is to end up with one—that's why we're debating. The negative world is far more likely to do so, considering the fact that vigilantes can't achieve equitable justice. I advocate systemic change (I'm sure you can say it with me by now, readers) through minor adjustments in legitimate states which work within the established system (rather than a highly biased individual taking the law into his or her own hands) or via revolution in corrupt states. If a legitimate state's justice system just needs a little tweaking, like 20 more trained INS patrolmen on the border, that can be fixed without vigilantes shooting rifles at Mexican immigrants. If an illegitimate state's "justice system" needs an entire overhaul, revolution is the best solution. Good stuff! Thanks to falafel & vote neg!