March 2009 LD Resolution

1 reply [Last post]

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

Anyone have anything related to the resolution they want to talk about...

I actually like this resolution a lot for its simplicity. It was always the simplest resolutions that were the most interesting. Generally speaking, I think Affirmative has a difficult burden with this resolution.

One thought I had - and I'm curious of other people's thoughts - is the extent to which the Affirmative can assume governmental abuse of power. After all, if the government isn't using its power to enforce the law, then what is it using its power for? Anything outside the realm of "enforcing the law" could range from pure incompetence to a range of possible abuses.

If this line of reasoning holds, I think the affirmative gains some strong arguments. For then the Affirmative can argue that the government can wield its power for a range of possible abuses - ranging from petty corruption, on one end, to organized genocide at the other extreme. Governments wield enormous power; if this power is managed improperly, terrible things can happen, on a scale much greater than what one person could cause. Even if you assume there's a lack of justice from people with vigilantism, isn't this lack of justice outweighed by the possible reprecussions of a corrupt government? In general, governmental abuse of power has the potential to cause much greater societal damage then people taking the law into their own hands to protect themselves and their families.

Some food for thought and I'm curious as to other people's thoughts on this line of reasoning.

Post reply