Vigilantism is justified when the government fails to enforce the law

"A government that fails to fulfill its responsibility to its citizens is not a legitimate government, thus citizens aren't obligated to recognize its legitimacy," once said philosopher John Locke. If we recognize what this means in the current debate you must affirm the resolution resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. My value for this round will be that of justice. Justice is the quality of being just, equitable, and moral right. Conception of justice is one of the key features of society because essentially justice concerns the proper orderings of people and operations within a society. Justice can also be defined as the equilibrium between the freedoms of a citizen and the restrictions of a society. My Value Criterion will be protection of rights through John Locke's Social Contract. The concept of protecting one's own rights must be looked at through the filter of the social contract. This is essentially an exchange between the government and its people. Locke's social contract, upon which most all governing bodies are based, states that if the government upholds the laws and protect its people, the citizens will obey the law. It also states that when the government fails to protect its citizens, it is not legitimate. In order to give clarity to the round, I offer the following definitions: Government – The offices of a nation/political unit being responsible for direction and supervision of public affair Failed-a state of inability to perform a normal function Enforce- to compel observance of or obedience Law-government made rule of conduct to enforce authority Vigilantes, according to the American University Law Review are: -self appointed doers of justice -are members of an organized committee -are established members of a community -proceed with definite goals, not with the intension of random violence -act as a last resort because of a failure of the established law system (All other definitions are taken from the American Law dictionary) From this definition, we must see that true vigilantes only act to enforce the laws the government cannot or will not enforce. They are not revolutionaries, rather the opposite. True vigilantes strive to uphold the current legal system by preventing, deterring, or providing justice for crime. Observation 1) The term "has failed" limits the debate Note that the resolution cites "when the government has failed to enforce the law", not "when the government has failed to make the right laws." Thus we must look to cases of vigilantism where it is in response to lack of enforcement of laws and not the making of the wrong laws. That means SA, the KKK, and other radical groups are irrelevant under the resolution, as they do not act because the government has failed to enforce the laws. Instead they act because they believed that the laws themselves were wrong. Therefore they are irrelevant. Contention 1) Given the resolution, justice can only be exacted through vigilantism. The government failing to uphold the law justifies the actions of the vigilante. Under a governmental system the government is the highest power, thus has the ability to apply and punish laws. However, in a case such as one advocated by the resolution, the government has failed to uphold the law. As the government is the basis of the law this essentially means that the government is illegitimate and without any de facto power. If the Government, the highest power that asserts its power on the citizens according to its singular ideals of structure, has failed, the vigilante is justified at working for the top, and exercising his own "will to power". This struggle against his surroundings is justified as the government has essentially relinquished power over the people. Thus, Vigilantism is justified when the government fails to uphold the law. What you must analyze in today's resolution is the section quoted "when the government fails to enforce the law." In further analysis of this section of the resolution, you realize that what it's asking is, is a law abiding citizen just in standing up for a law when no one else will? And the answer is a firm yes. How can you deem courageous actions in the face of wrong doing, bad? Here is the thing, the government failed to enforce the law. Who now upholds the law? If not vigilantes, then certainly no one will. Without law, society is unjust, and would degrade into a Hobbesian State of Nature. We cannot promote justice, unless we allow vigilantism. What is a citizen to do when the government is failing? Ride the government down like a sinking ship until you drown in its inefficiencies, or stand up for what is right in an effort to reestablish justice? The point is, there will be no law, no justice, and no legitimate society without vigilantism. Contention 2) Vigilantism as a permissible mode of self-help is justified under social contract theory. First, the breakdown of the social contract occurs when the state fails in its obligation to protect the individual. This breakdown justifies the individual's resort to self-help. Social contractarians, in particular, argue that the individual, in giving up the norm of private vengeance, is entitled to the state's protection. Thus, the "central claim of contract theory is that contract is the means to secure and enhance individual freedom." Under social contract theory, if the state fails in its obligation to protect citizens, the government is considered dissolved and the people are entitled to provide for their own protection. One philosopher concludes that where the state fails to protect its citizens, protecting oneself is not considered civil disobedience. One may extrapolate this premise to conclude that vigilantism is morally justified by the state's failure to uphold its end of the compact. Contention 3) Vigilantism is necessary to maintain justice, especially in less structured societies. Although Vigilantism is important for all nations in the situation stated by the resolution, it is especially necessary in less structured societies. In Brazil, for example, as few as one percent of all robberies are successfully investigated by the police (Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, American Academy of Arts and Sciences). Furthermore, Jose Gregori, the secretary of state for human rights stated: "[Brazil] is a chronically violent country. The police are not efficient, it does not fight crime, and it is violent. The justice system is very slow." From this we can conclude that the only hope of justice in Brazil comes from vigilantism, seeing as the government actually furthers crime, and brings the inhabitants away from attaining justice. Justice is, as I previously stated, the equilibrium between the freedoms of a citizen and the restrictions of a society. In Brazil and many other countries, these freedoms are too extreme. Again, it is the responsibility of the citizens to exercise their right of autonomy to maintain justice. In conclusion, vigilantism is ultimately the only way to achieve justice in said resolution. Without it, the law is left unenforced. Society itself degrades into a Hobbesian state of nature, and chaos ensues. Therefore we must simply allow people to stand up for themselves. Because of this, I can only affirm the resolution. Thank you.