FromTheSouth
You don't want it with me.
OK, tonight I introduce our new debate topic. The last one never for off the ground, but this one seems a little more fun. Just the review, we're taking old high school debate topics, and making them our own.
Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.
A just society is one that fulfills it's obligations to a society. One of these obligations is to protect it's citizenry. When this responsibility is unmet, social order breaks down, and no good comes of that. The risk of walking out of your door increases exponentially, and your home isn't safe either.
Thus, I agree that vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.
1. A social contract democracy is based on reciprocal obligations. When man surrenders his natural rights to a society, the society promises certain protections. The aim of a government is to protect man's inalienable natural rights to life, liberty, and property. It is the obligation of government to imprison those who violate these rights. When government fails to do so, who is left to protect the citizenry? The topic does not specify the level of vigilantism, so on a case by case basis, a reasonable man can appropriately apprehend and detain an offender until that offender can be turned over to the state. We appoint, and even celebrate men who do this today. Has anyone heard of Dog, the Bounty Hunter? I do not advocate having six year olds take watch shifts with automatic rifles, but a man capturing fugitives that the city is not actively looking for fits the criteria.
2. The founding fathers of the United States wrote provisions into our founding documents to allow for vigilantism. The second amendment of the Constitution provides for the right to bear arms and maintain a well organized militia. What is the point of this militia? It is to act in absence of appropriate government action. Overthrowing and imprisoning corrupt politicians is a form of vigilantism, and is asked of us, through the second amendment, by the people who founded this country. The justification exists to protect a tyrannical dictatorship from taking over the nation. The founding fathers knew that without the second amendment, we would lose the first, which is a violation of the liberty promised to us in the social contract.
3. Vigilantism is only acceptable when the government has failed to enforce the law. Obviously, there is a public safety issue involved when this is taken too literally. There will not be civilians stopping speeders or hunting down petty thieves with pitchforks. Only when the government has failed is vigilantism an option. If the government is actively seeking a solution to a problem, then the people should not riot. However, if the government fails to protect citizens, or cowers in the face of a threat, it is the patriotic thing to rise up against the oppressor and fight for your life and your land. No system is perfect, and inherent risks exist, however, lying down and taking acts of aggression from criminals or even a foreign nations without fighting back shows an unworthiness for freedom.
Preserving our society provides collective benefits, but requires collective efforts. If the state is not providing the benefits, then I feel it is society's right and obligation to rise up and protect itself.
Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.
A just society is one that fulfills it's obligations to a society. One of these obligations is to protect it's citizenry. When this responsibility is unmet, social order breaks down, and no good comes of that. The risk of walking out of your door increases exponentially, and your home isn't safe either.
Thus, I agree that vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.
1. A social contract democracy is based on reciprocal obligations. When man surrenders his natural rights to a society, the society promises certain protections. The aim of a government is to protect man's inalienable natural rights to life, liberty, and property. It is the obligation of government to imprison those who violate these rights. When government fails to do so, who is left to protect the citizenry? The topic does not specify the level of vigilantism, so on a case by case basis, a reasonable man can appropriately apprehend and detain an offender until that offender can be turned over to the state. We appoint, and even celebrate men who do this today. Has anyone heard of Dog, the Bounty Hunter? I do not advocate having six year olds take watch shifts with automatic rifles, but a man capturing fugitives that the city is not actively looking for fits the criteria.
2. The founding fathers of the United States wrote provisions into our founding documents to allow for vigilantism. The second amendment of the Constitution provides for the right to bear arms and maintain a well organized militia. What is the point of this militia? It is to act in absence of appropriate government action. Overthrowing and imprisoning corrupt politicians is a form of vigilantism, and is asked of us, through the second amendment, by the people who founded this country. The justification exists to protect a tyrannical dictatorship from taking over the nation. The founding fathers knew that without the second amendment, we would lose the first, which is a violation of the liberty promised to us in the social contract.
3. Vigilantism is only acceptable when the government has failed to enforce the law. Obviously, there is a public safety issue involved when this is taken too literally. There will not be civilians stopping speeders or hunting down petty thieves with pitchforks. Only when the government has failed is vigilantism an option. If the government is actively seeking a solution to a problem, then the people should not riot. However, if the government fails to protect citizens, or cowers in the face of a threat, it is the patriotic thing to rise up against the oppressor and fight for your life and your land. No system is perfect, and inherent risks exist, however, lying down and taking acts of aggression from criminals or even a foreign nations without fighting back shows an unworthiness for freedom.
Preserving our society provides collective benefits, but requires collective efforts. If the state is not providing the benefits, then I feel it is society's right and obligation to rise up and protect itself.
