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

In regards to my opponent's affirmation that I showed no link between popular sovereignty and justice, I quote my first constructive: (Popular Sovereignty) is "basically the idea that because the government gains power through the consent of the people, it is the duty of the government to reflect it." That being said, its obvious that if the ultimate goal of the preservation of autonomy is the reflection of the will of the people being preserved through the vigilante going after criminals, then there's no reason no vote affirmative, as the negative accomplishes this objective with greater expertise and ability to enact this will. See my contentions 1 through 3 and apply to this above argument as proof. In regard to the claim of the legitimacy of the government as an attack against popular sovereignty, i simply stated that it is the duty of the government to reflect the true will of the people. I never stated that this was the case with the government in the resolution. The government in the resolution has obviously failed to maintain popular sovereignty, and my case affirms a course of action to restore popular sovereignty, and consequently, justice. In regards to his attack on my contention one: Regardless of whether due process or safety take priority in this debate, the Negative preserves both in his stance. Therefore you must vote negative as he affirms the preservation of both safety AND due process. In regards to his attack on my contention two: A government that has unjust laws in the first place obviously needs reform; however, by not enforcing these unjust laws, they are in fact preserving justice. An unjust law, such as the law provided as an example for my C2, is still a law, and thus the affirmative must encourage vigilantism of unjust laws, which he has failed to address. In regards to his attack on my contention 3: I agree that criminals should still face punishment, but we must remember that it must be just punishment. That being said, vigilantes lack the resources and authority to do anything other than physical punishment, and thus justice is best preserved by the negative, because I affirm justice for all crimes, including those that still deserve punishment that doesn't include physical harm to the criminal. In regards to his attack on my contention four: In regards to my opponent's defense of his VC: The claim that shooting a man takes away the murder's self-government is a bold claim that is backed by no warrant whatsoever. I am forced to ignore this argument unless it is expanded upon by my opponent. Additionally, my opponent still fails to provide a line within his VC that divides harmful actions from helpful actions. Therefore, it must be assumed that my opponent's stance harms society, as with the example I provided, and therefore affirms unjust action. Extend the negation of his VC for the negation of his defense of his first contention. My opponent's defenses of his second contention are completely lacking warrants, and are simply bold statements with no logic, reasoning or evidence to back them up. Even if governmentment was nessecary to protect self-government, the negative would win because the governemenr is best preserved, as is self-government through popular sovereignty.