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

Hello, thanks for starting the debate I negate the resolution Because you have begun this debate using LD rules, I'll try and use LD rules as well Value: Moral relativism--basically the concept that all people have different morals which differ between people, regions, cultures, relgions, beliefs, values, etc. Philisophical Basis (or 'value criterion'): Rule of Law--basically the idea that no man is above the law, and the law applies equally to all people Definitions: Vigilante- Self appointed administrator of punishment who ignores due process of law due to a perceived lack of insufficient government action. Justify- to show to be reasonable or necessary. Government- A body with the power to create and enforce laws. Law- the collection of rules imposed by authority. *Note that in this debate, affirmative has the burden of proof, and must prove that vigilantism can always be justified when the government has failed to enforce the law Contentions: 1.) Vigilantes lack legitimate political authority. I am essentially saying that citizens of a nation have not necessarily consented to the authority of vigilantes. Take the example of the popular and fictional superhero "The Punisher". He goes around killing criminals where law enforcement has failed to. Where does his authority to do this come from? My philosophy is that the law applies equally to all people, and in this instance, the majority of people have not necessarily consented to any such vigilante action, and there is no way for them to stop the punisher. If the government was doing this, they could elect new leaders, but this is not possible with the punisher. My example may sound extreme, but it does fit the resolution, so the affirmative must defend the punisher's actions. Also, such extreme crime-fighting vigilantes can appear in third world countries. 2.) Vigilantes cannot be trusted to use authority justly. People have given political authority to the government because the assumption is that the government will be a just governing body and respect in the individual rights of the people. Now, in the resolution, it's implied that the government is one that does in fact respect individual rights and has legitimate and democratic political authority, not one that is totalitarian or rogue. However, as I have already stated, no one has given any political authority to vigilantes. Vigilantes don't have any form of constitution or written guarantees that they will be respectful of the law or individual rights. As a result, vigilantes could easily become rogue or terrorist organizations, garnering their own personal agenda. I would like to reiterate my value or moral relativism, that everyone will have different morals. The members of a vigilante organization will have their own ideas of right and wrong and law, and those ideas may prove harmful to a society. Since there is no guarantee that vigilantes will be just in their actions, vigilantism is not just justified. Once again, we cannot trust the punisher to be just in his punishment. Another good example is that of the "Juarez Citizens Command", a vigilante organization in Juarez Mexico that has promised to kill one 'criminal' a day until 'order is restored' (essentially until drug violence ends)[1]. This is practically genocide. It is a massive murder and human rights violation that cannot be abided for any reason, not even 'social order'. Note that the criminals may not even be related to the drug war. My opponent is obligated to defed the Juarez citizens command and the murder that they are committing. 3.) Vigilantism could be dangerous to an existing and just democratic government. Vigilante groups that have executive authority are a recipe for civil war. Simply because a government is unable to enforce the law in one instance does not mean that that government is inherently useless and deserves to be thrown out. A vigilante group could threaten a legitimately just government. Imagine what would happen if vigilante groups appeared in the United States. It can be argued that the confederate states of America were a vigilante organization. They strongly felt that the government had failed to secure their rights, so they set out to fix the problem as they saw necessary. Look what happened. Refutations: 1.) Simply because the vigilante has a goal of justice does not mean that his or her actions are automatically justified. As an anonymous person once said "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". The KKK believed that it was seeking justice. The KKK may very well have had the noblest intentions in the world, but that does not justify their actions in the least. The concept that having a "goal of justice" will automatically justify an action is foolish. 2.) Maintaining social order does not trump rule of law. My opponent assumes that maintaining some level of social order must be the greatest good. This is not the case. Maintaining social order cannot come before human rights. The actions of the Juarez vigilantes are not justified by the fact that it could possibly increase 'social order'. Additionally, there are many situations where vigilantism will detract from social order. The only thing that the Juarez vigilantes do is add an extra party to the Mexican drug war, further complicating an already complicated issue and making it harder for government officials to stop drug traffickers and resolve the issue. The idea that leads to social order can only be a short term solution at best. Vigilantism does not contribute towards the formation of a stable government, and over time, vigilantes will merely end up supplanting the anarchy that they were created to form. Vigilantism, as I have stated, is a recipe for civil war and regional warlords. 3.) My opponents third contention is unclear, but it seems like he is claiming that "standing there is death". This statement is exagerated. Note that vigilantes act out of a perceived lack of action or justice, not a legitimate lack of action of justice. As a result, they will be quick to overreact. Additionally, my opponent fails to draw the distinction that exists between vigilantism and self-defense. I argue against vigilantism, not against self-defense. I believe that you do have the right to defend yourself, should the need arise. However, you do not necessarily have the right to run around dealing out punishment for a 'perceived' lack of government action. The right to self-defense means that "standing there" is not going to be death. Sources: [1] http://www.elpasotimes.com...