resolved: vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

I negate that Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. The value is Justice, defined by Plato as "doing one's own business in a certain way". This means that each person must perform their natural talent to its fullest potential. This value is paramount because with each person filling his or her natural place in society, Plato points out that this society would be functioning at its optimum level. The criterion is the Synderesis. St. Thomas Aquinas says that the justice of an action comes from the intent, means and ends of that action. This criterion weighs the round based on whether or not the affirmative can meet all 3 of these burdens, and as such, my 3 contentions will focus on the 3 criteria of The Synderesis. Contention I- The intents are biased. Criminal Justice Manager Thomas R. O'Connor of Austin Peay State University states that "It is significant that one of the first things a vigilante does is stake out their target, stalk their victim, and engage in a whole lot of brooding and premeditation… Vengeance is an un-tempered emotion, like fear, lust, and anger. Justice and punishment should not be guided by banal, primitive, un-tempered emotions." If we allow vengeance and personal bias to get in the way of justice, our society will cease to function properly, because citizens will not be acting to fulfill their natural potential, but only to satisfy society's lust for blood. Contention II- The means are unjust. O'Connor continues, "Vigilante thinking is precisely the opposite of any notion of fairness, fair play, or chance for acquittal. Vigilantes do not care to wait for the police to finish their investigation, and they care less about any court's determination of proof." This presents two problems with vigilantism: one, affirming the resolution allows vigilantes to promote their own personal concept of justice, free of any safeguards; we would give them the power of judge, jury, and executioner. Second, "Vigilantism, Vigilante Justice, and Self-Help" explains, "Vigilante justice is sometimes too swift and too sure. Vicious beatings and on-the-spot executions do not fit the crime." It becomes painfully apparent that vigilantism often glorifies violence and erases any sense of proportional punishment for offenders. The extreme methods employed by vigilantes prevent suspected criminals from realizing their natural potential in society. Contention III- The effects hurt both citizens and the government. Ethics in Action, vol. 2, says that "By justifying the arming of civilians, the government has encouraged the blurring of responsibility. Whose job is it to enforce laws and maintain order? Who is to be held accountable when rights are violated, and under what mechanism? There are no clear answers to these questions, perpetuating a cycle of impunity." Two negative effects come from vigilantism; one, the dependence on vigilantism encourages the government to shirk its duties, second, justice is obstructed when the actions of citizens prevent the current or future government from performing its natural duty in society. Now, flip the flow and look to the affirmative. First, I'd like to make a special stipulation on the burden he outlines; understand that, by failing any of the 3 tests of the Synderesis, Vigilantism is automatically proven unjust; so the justice of the action depends solely upon the aff. On Justice, 3 arguments: 1. We have to look to each person performing his natural duty to society; obviously, not everyone is meant to be a part of law enforcement; this, of course, is why we establish government to begin with; even assuming that said body has failed to enforce a single law, that doesn't mean that said government is now entirely helpless. 2. The aff never explains how people are being given their due; with his definition, we can see that a vigilante is merely some citizen taking the law into his/her own hands; thus, this person is operating on some personal code of morality and justice, meaning that he won't be able to objectively determine what each person is due; as I pointed out in my 1st contention, vigilantes act on their biases and a lust for vengeance (as they are apprehending AND punishing these criminals); they will merely be acting to avenge a crime as opposed to rendering the criminal and victim what they are respectively due (assuming the crime has a victim at all). 3. The aff also never explains to us exactly what everyone in this situation is due (the vigilantes, the common people, the criminal, the victim, the government, etc.); thus, we obviously can't allow my opponent to win value debate if he never proves the achievement of the value he set up. On MPHR, 2 arguments: 1. He tries to say people are all due human rights, but as I explained, he doesn't detail what happens to each entity; the criminal's rights, for example, aren't being protected; affirming the resolution allows an unchecked vigilante to pursue vengeance and violence as opposed to impartial justice, and, as I point out in contention 2, "vicious beatings and on-the-spot executions do not fit the crime." 2. This is a very consequential, "ends justify means" criterion; look at the analysis under the Synderesis: the aff is ignoring the malicious, bias-fueled intentions of vigilantes, and the over-the-top violence employed; honestly, as much as my opponent would like you to believe rights are being protected, he establishes no causal link between vigilantism and MPHR, and, once you view the resolution through the Synderesis, you'll clearly vote neg. On contention I, 2 arguments. 1. My opponent assumes that one failure to enforce one law is equivalent to illegitimacy; however, it would be a fallacy to assume that, because a government isn't entirely perfect, that it isn't legitimate, and that we revert to the state of nature; but, until my opponent proves that a single government failure is equivalent to the destabilization of the entire government structure, you certainly can't buy this argument. 2. Even if a government has dissolved as my opponent claims, look to Locke's 2nd Treatise, Sec. 220: "In these and the like cases, when the government is dissolved, the people are at liberty to provide for themselves, by erecting a new legislative, differing from the other, by the change of persons, or form, or both, as they shall find it most for their safety and good." Thus, Locke grants citizens the right to reshape the government into a more capable, favorable form, but he NEVER grants them the right to take law into their own hands, as people have already come out of the state of nature. On contention II, 1 argument: Simply put, his argument is about self-defense, but the government already failed: In layman's terms, you can't defend yourself from an attack that has already transpired; look back to my 1st ctn: this is simply vengeance. Also, contradiction: He claims that a legitimate government upholds the right to self-defense, even though first of all, the government, as he claims, is dissolved, and second of all, if there were a legitimate government, people would most likely not need to exercise this right to "self-defense". Clear contradiction. On contention III, 2 arguments. 1. Look back to my own ctn 3, where I point out that vigilantes blur the line between citizen and state responsibility, making achievement of Plato's Justice impossible, and even encourages the government to shirk its obligations. 2. As I explained in ctns 2 and 3, society's utilization of vigilante vengean- I mean, "justice", not only forces society to rely on bias and excessive violence, but to actually "perpetuate a cycle of impunity". It was a very close shave on characters, so I'll save the rest of my batch of arguments for Round 2, and with that, I'll turn it over to the aff.