Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law

Per Ike Brown, criminal sociologist: Vigilantism- A social movement without authorized legal authority aimed at the rectification of a structural flaw in society brought about by inadequate law enforcement. Per the RHD: Government: The political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states. The Law: The principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision. Value: Societal Progression. As the situations of the times change, society must adapt to expand its influence as to limit harmful changes and to encourage helpful ones. Societal progression must been seen as the superior value in today's debate because without progression, no change for the better can be achieved and society will ultimately collapse. Value Criterion: The Will to Power. Every human individual seeks to expand its dominion in the greatest amount possible. In pursuing this will to power, however, the individual repeatedly conflicts with other beings which also seek to expand its power. In order to further their wills to power, these beings form groups, unions, and societies so as to channel their energies together to expand their power. A government thus holds two essential purposes: one, to expand its citizens' wills to power, and two, to protect its citizens from harmful individuals whose quests to expand power conflict with the general public. The government has failed to expand the will to power as to limit the actions of the criminal, and it has failed to protect it's citizens from the criminals' will to power. Thus, because the government has failed to fulfill these duties, it falls upon the citizens to take these duties unto themselves, as Natural Law under the Will to Power would demand. Observation One: The American University of Law Review has concluded that vigilantes: -One, are members of an organized committee -Two, are established members of a community -Three, proceed with definite goals (as opposed to random acts of violence) -And Four, act as a last result as a result of the failure of the established legal system. Cross apply this with my Value Criterion and you will see that because the government has field to adequately represent its' citizen's wills to power, the vigilantes act to take this will to power upon their own shoulders, and thus act for the progression of society by their necessary expansion of the will to power. Observation Two: Because there is no antecedent in regards to "the law" as stated in the resolution, it is implied that the government has failed to enforce the law as a general concept. Contention One: Vigilantism is justified because it limit's the negative effects of the expansion of criminal's power. When an individual commits a crime, he directly opposes the progression of society as a whole in favor of his personal desires for power. As such, because his pursuit of power conflicts with the pursuits of the public, his actions must be stopped. The apathy on part of the government does nothing to quench the essential will to power of the people. Criminal action directly opposes the desire for power and progress of the law-abiding public, and because these two wills to power are in conflict, both sides must be represented in order to ensure progression. By advocating a Negative stance, the will to power of the public goes unrepresented and thus the criminal's will to power is unchallenged. When applied to the resolution, Negative advocacy essentially breaks down to anarchy because the will to power of the public is not represented in any way. Contention Two: Vigilantism is justified because it aids the expansion of the people's will to power. Criminal activity poses a threat to the progression and power of society. By means of vigilantism, the will to power expands over those who freely wage war against the progress of society. The resolution clearly states that the government has failed to enforce the law, and in doing such, opposes the will to power of the people. The Negative asserts that the citizens have no such authority to expand their will to power without proper authority. Accordingly, the will to power of the people cannot be represented, and thus, society becomes ridden with conflict. The regulation of the will to power guarantees that the people's efforts towards expansion are maintained and that those who oppose this will are punished, while a lack of representation ultimately looses the individuals' own wills to power, which can be destructive. These destructive wills create a detriment to society and without regulation of these wills, society will descend into lawlessness and ultimately collapse into a chaos of disorderly conflicts of will. On to refutation. My opponents' value must be rejected in favor of Societal Progression because without the progression of society, welfare can never be improved. If criminal activity reigns free, the welfare of society cannot be achieved because the collective wills to power of the people cannot be channeled towards greater goals. My opponent even concludes his explanation of his value by saying that society cannot progress without the establishment of a social order, and I have already proven that the social order will collapse if the people's wills to power are not maintained. Thus, we must value Societal Progression as the supreme value in this debate. For the measurement of Societal Welfare my opponent advocates that we must strive to reduce human suffering. My opponent advocates a perfect world where conflict of will doesn't exist and everyone lives in peace in harmony without providing any sort of logical proof as to how this would be achieved. Therefore, we must see that the opposing VC flows to the Affirmative because the representation of the people's wills to power ensures that society will not dissolve into chaos and lawlessness, thereby removing many potential conflicts and casualties. My opponents first point is invalid because it hinges upon an essential belief of essential humanity; that is, he says that because humans cannot define justice, justice cannot be achieved. Let me first point out that my opponent's claim that is not within the scope of human achievement to define justice is unwarranted. But regardless of whether this claim is true, justice still exists, and we must strive to achieve the best level of true justice possible. Regardless of what the Hitlers and Mussolinis or the Lincolns or Washingtons of this world see justice as, there is still an objective standard that must be aimed for. My opponent's second contention is additionally invalid because of his inaccurate assertion that the aim of a vigilante is to enforce the law. As seen by my case, the true duty of the vigilante is to replace the government in the representation of the people's will to power by acting against opposing wills, and in this regard, there is no hypocrisy to speak of. Finally, my opponent once again misinterprets the goals of vigilantes in his third contention. Vigilantes must represent the will to power of the people and act against those who oppose it. Prevention is a cause worth aiming for but can never be achieved on a universal scale short of removing all conflict, all human interaction. By definition each individuals' wills to power are in conflict with one another, but the individuals can further their wills by uniting under a common goal, as is the purpose of government or vigilante action. They then act against those who oppose this will. With the rejection of government control and the rejection of vigilantism, the people's wills to power cannot be represented and thus their wills will be in constant conflict with their aggressors.