Mar 3, 2009

a libertarian view of vigilantism

Examining the vigilantism resolution, blog-neighbor Jason Kuznicki has weighed in on the vigilantism resolution, offering a libertarian perspective--and a corrective to what he sees as a flawed understanding of the libertarian view. In a sample passage, Kuznicki considers whether the affirmative should look to the inverse of the resolution for inspiration.
It may therefore be worthwhile to turn matters around, and to ask whether we could defend the proposition “Vigilantism is never justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.”

Accepting this proposition would require a sort of legal quietism; we might be forbidden from ever enforcing laws ourselves, even in cases of revolution, civil disorder, or state collapse. Indeed, we might even be forbidden from forming a new government, at least as long as representatives or partisans of the old government were still committed to it. The right of revolution, particularly of revolution in the peaceful or conservative traditions, would be read out as well. This concedes an awful lot.
For the alternative--and for some interesting questions for the Negative to consider--read the whole thing.


pgrabz said...

Ah, Mr. Kuznicki has a unique and plausible view of the resolution, but, Mr. Anderson, if one does run this argument, would it be considered a "kritik" of the resolution, and therefore illegal?

Jim Anderson said...

I don't think you'd have to adopt an absolutist rereading pace Kuznicki to argue that negating the resolution renders the State too much power to define its own legitimacy.