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

My opponent's attack on my Value is irrational. He suggests using a subjective method as an effort to meet an objective standard. Just because someone believes that something is justified doesn't mean that it is. The expansion of power (as is the duty of a government) and unjust actions are two separate acts and should be treated as such. Furthermore, irrational expansions of power do not fall under the definition of vigilantism because these instances would not be used to rectify society's structural flaws, but would instead create new ones. My opponent's inadequate attacks on my Value Criterion are rooted in a basic misunderstand of the Will to Power. A government has two duties: To expand and maintain the power of its citizens, and to protect the already existing dominion of its citizens against threatening forces. The progress of society is therefore essentially bound to the will to power because of the expansion achieved under such a will. Regardless of whether or not a community is physically expanding its boundaries, it is still working under the will to power. For example, Germany under the guiding hand of Otto von Bismark did not seek to colonize, in contrast other nations at the time. Rather, Bismark strove to ensure that the Germany that he had helped to craft would further stabilize for the sake of its future as a prosperous nation. In doing such, Bismark ensured the expansion of the German nation's power internally as opposed to externally. My opponent misinterprets the will to power as a way to act; rather, the will to power is THE way we act. The problem with a Negative stance, however, is that there remains no way to combine the people's wills to power to reach common goals of progression. From Plato to Locke, philosophers have noted that one of the main reason man naturally forms societies is because under such a union they can channel their efforts to accomplish tasks that could not be achieved by the individual. A Negative stance creates a total removal of this standard and as such, the people's wills fall into disorderly conflict and anarchy reigns. My opponent's attacks on my first contention are illogically based. All attacks on my first contention try to connect an Affirmative position to a requirement of a just society, while the resolution only equates an Affirmative position with justified action. Neither affirmative nor negative positions achieve a Utopian standard of justice because the government fails to enforce the law. However, the highest standard of justice possible must be attained, and vigilantism works towards this standard in a way not remotely achieved by Negation. As my opponent attacked my Contention 2 by extension of his attack on my VC, I defend my C2 by defense of my VC. Note that Negative has failed to refute that vigilantism does not descend society into lawlessness by fault of the chaotic conflict of wills achieved by a Negative stance. My opponent asserts that progression can be a step backwards on the part of society, but by definition that would be a regression of society. Progression always moves the will to power of the society forward and must be valued over my opponent's value of societal welfare because progression serves the society as a whole by moving forward. Note that my opponent is extremely vague in what constitutes welfare in society; he assures us that a state of anarchy serves the welfare of the public better than regulation and protection by extension of the will of the people. It could be said that the Negative value is better achieved by an Affirmative stance. My opponent further states that justice can only be approximated, but I would have to disagree. If justice could only be approximated, the resolution would be "Vigilantism 'can be' justified when the government has failed to enforce the law." There has to be a standard of measuring justice; as Aristotle stated, we must give each his due, both to the law-abiding public and to those who wish to wage war against the well being of society. By this we can see that this standard of justice is by no means achieved by a Negative stance. My opponents weak attempt at defense of his conceded contention two fails even further. The will of the people is the will to power by which every being acts, the will for expansion and growth of society. Thus we must see that through this basic will the very nature of humanity is fulfilled and justice is attained. Finally, if my opponent does not establish a method in his contention three that reduces pain and suffering that CANNOT be achieved by vigilantism, his C3 is irrelevant to this debate. Seeing as we have three rounds left, I wish to see some proof that by Negation a lesser degree of suffering can be realized. As this as of yet has not been established, at this moment my opponent's C3 is irrelevant to this debate. I await my opponent's response.