Vigilantism is Justified when the Government Fails to Enforce the Law

Because the framework for the round is a little off, I will only submit points of crystallization in order to remain as close to LD format as possible. To start off, I would once again like to mention that because both sides of the resolution have the same value, the one that best upholds it through the criterion and contentions deserves the win in the round. Moving on to the criterion clash. Preserving Communal Security versus Locke's right to revolution. I have two points on this 1) my opponent is constantly comparing communal security and self-preservation without any actual evidence. He just automatically believes the two are the same. If Wal-Mart had the opportunity to crush its competition, then it would, but there laws against that. Yet another point for the Negative side. Government is vital in communal security. In anarchy, Wal-Mart would crush its competition, but government protects all. 2) Revolution IS NOT the same as Vigilantism!!! Vigilantes think that they are better than and don't need the government. That means that they don't fix or overthrow the government, they just ignore it. In revolution, a government will be present, just replacing one for another. My opponent attempts to attack this by saying that a legitimate government may not replace the existing one, but that will just lead to another revolution until they replace it with one that does work. Vigilantism is the first step to anarchy, thus hurting communal security, and Revolution is the first step to a legitimate government, thus helping communal security. Therefore the Affirmative's criterion actually fits best on the Negative side. By upholding the right to revolt and communal security, we can only achieve justice on the Negative side. The next voting issue in the round is based on common ground. Both sides in this debate are guilty of arguing in perfect situation for each side, Aff - the perfect vigilante, Neg - vigilantes failing all the time, but we need to look to revolution in addition to vigilantism. First of all, looking to vigilantes, even if we do look in the middle, is Vigilantism a credible system if they fail approximately half the time? No, but let's look to revolution. Even if a revolution does fail, they always can revolt again until they have a legitimate government. If a vigilante does fail, can they go back and unpunish a criminal? No, that is why looking to a common ground, revolution always will end in success and vigilantism has the potential to fail, so we need to look to revolution only in order to achieve justice, and thus it is the only justified action. For the final voting issue in this round, I would like to look to the Wal-Mart argument. First of all, Vigilantism is a person just running through the store slashing prices. He wants to enforce the law (of "Always low prices") by slashing the prices, but what if he sells a big screen TV for ten bucks? Is that helpful to the community (the store as a whole)? No, and besides, if the government really has the biggest problems, would it make sense to run around to every last item and slash the prices? Again, this is a no and only when the community revolts and creates Target, they change everything into a decent store rather than changing things here and there. Starting things anew. If Wal-Mart really has that many problems, then it would be easier and more justified to start again. Looking to this round, only the Negative can provide the most justice, communal security and allow for the right to revolt when the government fails. Since I have proven that Vigilantism IS NOT a form of revolution and that revolution can create the most amount of success, we must look to only the Negative side to achieve anything of any value in this round and thus I can see nothing but a Negative ballot. I would like to thank all the judges in this round, but most of all my opponent for creating a very good and interesting round. Good luck in the rest of the tournament.