308 Chapter 12
thatthe anarchisthas a rightto becomea vigilantewhoneednot answerto the night
watchmanstate’s due-processlaws,thatanarchistwouldessentiallyarrogateto himself
the authorityto try andexecutepeople,devoidof permittingthemany chanceto prove
thattheyare innocentof spoliatingothers.Doesthe anarchistdeservea moralrightto
behaveas a self-appointedgrandinquisitor,throwingpeopleinto kangaroocourts?
Shouldthe accusedbe strippedof theirrightto demonstratetheirinnocenceof the crimes
for whichtheyare accused?Grantingthatthe answerto thosequeriesis no, freedom
requiresthata nightwatchmanhegemonyexists,andthatit monopolisticallyholdsany
would-beavengerwithinits bordersto the standardsof dueprocess.A Noncitizen,too,
mustreceivedue processif a PureCitizenpresseschargesagainsthim.
Let us returnto the scenarioof my suspectingRileyof trespassingontomy premises
andstealingmy belongings.In this newscenario,though,I do not hastilyenactviolent
vengeance.MaybeI, actingas a privatecitizen,actuallydo conformto the nightwatch-
manstate’s DueProcessrules.Stayingwithinthe boundsof lawandcivilliberties,I
gatherevidenceof Riley’s guilt.If I am followingthosedue-processrules,thenI am not
actuallycompetingagainstthe nightwatchmanstate.Shoulda privateorganizationact in
strictaccordancewiththe rulesof the nightwatchmangovernment,thenit, in effect,
becomesan extensionof the nightwatchmanstate.Privatecitizensmaybe deputized,for
instance.It is logicalthatoncea privatecitizenactuallydemonstrateshimselfto be re-
sponsibleenoughto becomean issuerof avengingviolence,he necessarilyproveshimself
to be a sortof adjunctor appendageof the constitutional-republicanstate.HarryBin-
swangerexplainsthatalthough“a propergovernmentdoesnot prohibita manfrom
usingforceto defendhimselfin an emergency,whenrecourseto the governmentis not
available,” it still “does,properly,requirehimto proveobjectively,at a trial,thathe was
actingin emergencyself-defense.Similarly,the governmentdoesnot ban privateguards;
but it does,properly,bringprivateguardsunderits supervision,and doesnot grantthem
any specialrightsor immunities:theyremainsubjectto the government’s authorityand
legalprocedures.”^15
Theadministeringof justicedoesnot necessarilyrequirethattherebe a singleparty
issuingnightwatchmanrules—therecan be an entirecoalitionof partiesthatenforce
night-watchmanrules.Yet sucha coalitionwouldbe actingas a cartel—a cartelwhose
memberscolludein enforcinguniformlynight-watchmanrepublicrules.Weretheyto do
that,theymightdevelopa clearinghousewherelawsare standardizedamongvarious
protectionservicebusinesses.Thatsinglebodyof law,though,wouldresultin the private
protectoragenciesbehavingas a singlehegemonicgovernment.
Insofaras the NightWatchmanStateIs Absent,FreedomIs Absent
ThinkaboutDavidD. Friedman’s pitchfor anarchy.Oneclientmighthavehighde-
mandfor a protectionagencythatstronglyadheresto due-process(DP)rules.Converse-
ly, I mightbe a “get-tough-on-crime” conservativewhothinksthatMirandarightsand
otherDP ruleshavegreatlyimpededthe U.S.constitutionalrepublic’s abilityto punish
guiltycriminals.Hence,my fellowget-toughconservativesandI mighthavestrongde-
mandfor a protectionserviceagencythatthatputsverylittleemphasison dueprocess,
consideringaccusedpartiesguiltyuntilproveninnocent.We mightnot onlywantthat
agencyto enforcesuchanti-DPproceduresuponits clients,but alsouponthe clientsof
pro-DPagencieswhomwe believeto havewrongedus. First,if thereare someprivate
agenciesthatenforcedue-processrules,whileotheragenciesdo not,thenthatcreatesa
situationwherelibertyis not trulymaximized,becausethe pro-DP,more-liberalized
agenciestacitlytolerate the oppressionof people(includingnon-consentingminors)
underanti-DPagencies.