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

"A government that fails to fulfill its responsibility is not a legitimate government, thus citizens aren't obligated to recognize its legitimacy," said John Locke a famous philosopher. If we recognize what this means in the current debate you must affirm the resolution. Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. For this debate my value will be justice. Justice can be defined as the maintenance or administration of what is just based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, fairness, and equity. Conception of justice is one of the key features of society because essentially justice concerns the proper orderings of people and things within a society. My Value Criterion will be John Locke's Social Contract. The concept of protecting one's own rights must be looked at through the filter of the social contract, which is essentially an exchange between the government and its people. Locke's social contract, upon which all governing bodies are based, states that if the government upholds the laws and protect its people, the citizens will obey the law. I also offer the following definitions Government – The offices of a nation/political unit being responsible for direction/supervision of public affair Failed-a state of inability to perform a normal function Enforce- to compel observance of or obedience: enforce a law Law-rule of conduct to enforce authority Vigilantism – a person who acts as a last resort because of a failure of the established system (American University of Law System) From this definition, we must see that true vigilantes only act to enforce the laws the government cannot or will not enforce. They are not revolutionaries, rather the opposite. True vigilantes strive to uphold the current legal system by preventing, deterring, or providing justice for crime. Contention 1) the phrase 'has failed' limits the debate Note that the resolution cites "when the government has failed to enforce the law", not "when the government has failed to make the right laws." Thus we must look to cases of vigilantism where it is in response to lack of enforcement of laws and not the making of the wrong laws. That means SA, and the KKK are irrelevant under the resolution, as they do not act because the government has failed to enforce the laws, instead they act/acted because they believed that the laws themselves were wrong. Contention 2) Vigilantism reduces violence The current status of society is already violent from a lack of government participation. By actually justifying vigilantism, we reduce the amount of violence because we are ensuring protection to those who are innocent. How can we stop people from harming each other you may ask? Well in a corrupted society like this, the social contract is not in effect because the government cannot protect the people. The only real way to ensure protection is vesting trust into a vigilante who promotes justice. If there is no one protecting the law, than life is brutish and short. By having a vigilante, we cannot only replace the lack of stability from the government but can also in regard to the laws. As I stated before, this resolution identifies with a corrupt society, that is a government that is not able to enforce laws, so therefore without a vigilante, we cannot protect the innocents. Contention 3) the illegitimate government The government is established to protect the rights of its people. It also establishes impartial judges to settle disputes. If it fails to protect the rights of its citizens, the government is illegitimate. In the absence of a legitimate government, a state of nature exists. In this state of nature, it's pretty much a free-for-all, everyone looking out for his or her own rights. Because of this, vigilantism is justified, because it's trying to protect yourself or others in the absence of a legitimate government. My opponent may say that a criminal is still a citizen, so the government still has to look after their rights. However, by committing a crime, they have attacked the social contract. By doing so, they have forfeited their rights. Contention 4) Tyranny Locke can easily imagine the conditions under which the contract with the government is destroyed and men are justified in resisting the authority of a civil government. When the executive power of a government is tyranny, such as by dissolving the legislature, and therefore denying the people the ability to make laws for their own preservation, then the resulting tyrant puts himself into a state of nature and specifically into a state of war with the people, and they have the same right to self defense as they had before making a contract to establish society in the first place. The founding fathers took this into consideration when they looked at the declaration of independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security" The founding fathers very well knew the social contract needed to be upheld to maintain a peaceful community. The authoritarian or totalitarian regime is a violation of this agreement. Locke and our founding fathers can imagine conditions under which one would be better off rejecting a particular civil government and returning to the state of nature, with the aim of constructing a better civil government in its place. In other words, the justification of the government is the protecting people's property and well-being, so when no such protection is granted, or when the government becomes tyrannical, citizens have a right, if not an obligation to resist its authority. The social contract is dissolved and the process to create a political society begins again. In conclusion people who commit crimes should be responsible for those crimes. It doesn't matter whether they're priests or ministers or atheists said John Ashcroft who is was the 79th United States Attorney General. By his statement he provides us with knowledge that criminals should be held accountable for their actions. Once again, Vigilantism is a person who acts to enforce the law as a last resort when the government fails. As I've stated. When our government can't protect us, then we have all rights to protect our community or, us. Therefore I strongly urge an affirmative ballot on the Resolution: Vigilantism is justified when the government fails to enforce the law. thank you