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

Thanks to my opponent for his response. It has been an interesting debate. My opponent stated that "he himself is admits that moral relativism is bad." I did not state that it was bad. I merely stated that it is a fact of life, and because of it, vigilantism cannot always be justified. My opponent attacks the link between my value and my v.c.. Allow me to explain it. Since all people have different values, it is necessary that nobody is above "the law" (meaning things like broad human rights, not always specific laws), because if someone is above "the law", the will impose their values unjustly upon others and use cruel and unjust punishment (and they will be biased judges). My opponent says that I have exaggerated any 'ill will' that vigilantes may have. My opponent claims that the "true will" of vigilantes is justice, therefore their actions are just. However, my value states that everybody has a different concept of justice, therefore, some people will commit actions that are extreme, overly violent, and undoubtedly unjust. Look at the Juarez city command. Their true will is justice, but they are committing murder in the process. My opponent tried to say that "just because a vigilante thinks he's doing justice but hes not, its not his true will." This makes no sense. If a vigilante thinks he's doing justice, that is his true will. He can't not be doing his true will if he thinks that he's doing his true will. My opponent continues to attack rule of law, saying that we should not obey the law if the law is something like slavery or genocide. Once again, my opponent interprets rule of law far too narrowly. Rule of law refers to basic human rights and laws that support equality, not specific laws, especially ones that encourage inequality. As I said before and I say again "Any law that gives people rights denied to others is a violation of Rule of Law, because of its unequal treatment. The 'Law' in Rule of Law is a broad generalization of the natural rights endowed to all people, as well as the laws broadly designed to provide for the common safety and equality of society, not specific or tyrannical laws (such as slavery)." My opponent also says that we can't always follow rule of law because political authority is not always just. Well a basic component of rule of law is that if political authority isn't just, then rule of law has been violated. My opponent continues to stress his "true will" argument, that I have already refuted in the second paragraph of this rebuttal. My opponent states "If you don't have the true will of justice then you aren't a vigilante.". Well, what is the true will of justice? My value tells us that all people have a different idea of the true will of justice. Without a common idea of the true will of justice, there is no way to tell is government has really failed. Without a way to tell is government has failed, vigilantism is never justified, and the resolution is negated. Remember, I define vigilantes as reacting to a "perceived" lack of government action. My opponent says "Understand that there is NO legitimate government LEFT.". I see where he's coming from, but he has no evidence to support this claim. The resolution says the government has failed to enforce the law. This probably just means one law, as in the case of John the angry neighboor. No where in the resolution is it specified that the legitimate government has disapeared. My opponent says " In your rebuttal you say that some people may have misconceptions about the failure of their government. This is completely illogical because of your vc.Rule of Law.". This makes no sense. Rule of law states that no man is above the law. How does this imply that people won't have misconceptions about the failure of government? It is true that vigilantes can have misconceptions about the failure of the government, and it is also true that vigilantes will violate rule of law. These statements are not contradictory, if anything, they support each other. My opponent claims that we know there is a failure of government when Rule of Law is violated. However, some people will disagree about when Rule of Law has been violated, so his point is null. My opponent has not addressed any of the considerations from my last rebuttal. Also, he has not adressed many of my other points and contentions. Because he has failed to do this, my case stands supreme. I urge a CON ballot for all the reasons I have stated in this debate. To my opponent, thank you for starting a good debate. To anyone who voted, thank you for voting.