tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post2002818579077416904..comments2023-11-05T00:59:10.828-07:00Comments on decorabilia: guest blogger on Locke and vigilantismJim Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-49255926567520323102009-04-15T21:17:00.000-07:002009-04-15T21:17:00.000-07:00I have a couple cards that define vigilantism that...I have a couple cards that define vigilantism that would take down this entire case.<br /><br />Vigilantism=Taking the law into your own hands<br /><br />State of Nature=No government<br /><br />No Government=No laws <br /><br />No Laws= No vigilantism<br /><br />Vigilantes need to take the LAW into their own hands. So if there is no law(defined by a government) there can be no vigilantism.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07777039162300147403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-25025374562861149392009-03-30T11:35:00.000-07:002009-03-30T11:35:00.000-07:00My initial reaction to the resolution was that a.)...My initial reaction to the resolution was that a.) all societies fail to enforce the law at one time or another which doesn't mean the social contract is broken and b.)the resolution asks if it's justified not if it's just. Thus I can see how something can be considered justified without necessarily following in line of "justice" which I'm sure you'll hear as a value time and time again.ILoveDebatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649989875986910331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-77426025853222806502009-03-18T09:39:00.000-07:002009-03-18T09:39:00.000-07:00Interesting use of the somalia example. I actually...Interesting use of the somalia example. I actually use that in my AFF case, arguing that the Xeer is a form of vig.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-84179974738204468022009-03-18T08:24:00.000-07:002009-03-18T08:24:00.000-07:00with regards to that affirmative case, negatives n...with regards to that affirmative case, negatives need to raise several questions really. 1) does conforming to Locke's Social Contract really bring about justice? I'd agree that the affirmative case does conform to Locke's SC, but only in cases where the government has failed to enforce the entire body of law. Debaters are taking a too narrow interpretation and agreeing to be debating about failed states/frontier socieities, and then bringing up empirical data that doesn't take place in failed states/frontier societies, but societies where the government does not maintain complete control. So you could lay out the first argument, that Locke only justified vigilantism when the government has wholly failed to enforce the law (partial affirmation). But even in extending that, Locke himself says that the state of nature is an undesirable state to be in. This is where negatives should look towards Order framework on the negative. If you can prove that vigilantism actually impedes the formation of ordered societies, even in it's most effective usage, then it can't be justified because it prevents consistent, procedural rights protection. Vigilantism perpetuates establishment violence in large areas of Africa and violence is seen as a legitimate means of solving disputes. As such, this from of establishment violence that vigilantism promotes has prevented the long-term formation of a solid governmental order. The power vacuum that Ms. Grewal argues for might be filled, but only in certain ways. 1)inconsistently, with some cases vigilantes have murdered police officers(Mexico) and the relatives of "suspected" criminals (Nigeria). 2) with inproportinate punishment. Since both of these ways are not ends in and of themselves, they can't be seen as just, especially when they present legitimate roadblocks to the formation of legitimate government. Also vigilantes, while acting for the community in these frontier socities, still violate the rights not only of the people they prosecute (procedural/due process), but the people they protect. Locke says that men have a right to judge their own cases in the state of nature, but vigilantes aren't even neccesarily judging their own cases---they are making judgements that affect the community. So even if you argue for arbitrary justice in the lack of government, vigilantes are violating the right of the people they protect to be judges in their own case. So in summary)Locke even if carried through on the flow can only affirm cases in the most narrow interp of the resolution (I know the resolution does not say when the govt fails to enforce A law, but it also doesn't say the ENTIRE body of laws) 2) Locke does not desire the type of arbitrary justice in the state of nature, and if you can prove that it is a roadblock to consistent justice(establishment violence), then locke himself would probably be against it (locke is for revolution, but only because he believes it will produce government) and 3) when disecting vigilantism and how it functions in frontier societies it doesn't even conform to Locke's own definition of the right to judge your own case. Vigilantes aren't even neccesarily handing out punishment for a crime committed against themselves, but for a crime committed against others. Since no consensus can be reached in a frontier society, vigilantes violate the right of other members to judge in their own cases (a natural right of Locke's)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com