304 Chapter 12
thattheycannotbe privatizedor sufficientlyinternalized.In thesecasesthe original
violencecommittedis, by its nature,a publicmatter,as is its rectification.
If Mr. X triesto kill me and I violentlysubduehim,this is not “just betweenMr. X and
me.” It is everyone’s rightfulbusinessto knowaboutthis altercation;the othercitizensin
the neighborhoodpossessa rightto knowwhetherI will be violenttowardthemas well.
Someonewhoinitiatesthe use of forceon one personmaydo this to anyoneelse,and
therebythreatensthe entiremunicipality.In thatrespect,violenceinitiatedon merelyone
personproducessocializedlossesfor all. Thatis whyit is just for the policeand courts,acting
as a representativeof the neighborhood,to questionandinvestigateme,andto go
throughDueProcessto determinewhetherI wasin fact actingin self-defense.If I initiat-
ed the use of forceagainstMr. X, I provemyselfto be a threatto otherpeople,not just Mr.
X. Thatis whyinitiatorsof the use of forcedeserveto be imprisonedor punished.If,
however,the policeand courtslogicallyascertain,throughDueProcess,that I wasacting
in self-defense,thentheyleaveme be, havingrationallydeterminedthatthereis not
sufficientreasonto believeI posea threatto otherpeoplein the neighborhood.
Whentwopeopleget intoa violentdispute,it is just thatthe governmentestablishes
this as a matterof publicrecord.Thirdpartiesdo havea rightto accesssuchinformation
to learnwhetherI will posea physicalthreatto them.Everyact of violenceis a “monopo-
listicimposition” of one’s ownwill.Actsin self-defenseproveno exception.If Mr.X
attacksme,andI violentlydefendmyself,I am “monopolisticallyimposing” my own
liberalethoson Mr. X.^11 Shouldanarchiststaketheiranti-“monopolistic” pluralismto its
logicalconclusion,theyshouldconsiderself-defenseto be morallyverboten.
VigilantesversusDueProcess
Thereis anothergreatflawin the anarchistargument.Manylibertariansagreewithme
thateveryindividualhas the rightto defendhimselfviolentlyagainstspoliation,as well
as the rightto defendotherinnocentpartiesviolentlyagainstspoliation.Unfortunately,
suchlibertariansconcludethatit logicallyfollowsfromthis thata perfectlyconsensualist
societyshouldallowfor privateorganizationsto exerciseretaliatoryviolencewheneverit
catchesthe privateorganizations’ fancy.Thismeansthatvigilantism—the practiceof
vigilantebehavior—is alwaysjustifiedas longas the vigilanteis actingstrictlyon behalf
of the innocentandagainstthe guilty.And,therefore,whenthe anarchistuttersthe
expressionprivatedefenseagency, it serves,in effect,as a euphemismforvigilante.
Thereare threedifferenttypesof partiesin a societythat dispenseviolence:(1) govern-
ments,(2) violentcriminals,and (3) vigilantes.Theseare “violence-dispensingagencies,”
or just “violenceagencies.” The distinctionsamongthesethreecategoriesare not always
clear-cut;therecan be someoverlapamongthem.I willemploya binarycategorization
for the wieldersof violence:spoliatorandavenger. A spoliatoris a partywhoinitiatesthe
use of physicalforce.Notethata spoliatorcan be a violentcriminal,a governmentallaw
enforcer,or a vigilante.By contrast,an avengeris a partywhoexercisesretaliatoryforce
againstthe spoliativeparty.An avengercannotbe a violentcriminal,for, in the contextof
our discussion,one necessarilyhas to be a spoliatorto be classifiedas a violentcriminal.
Whenactingproperly,a policemancan be an avenger.If a violentcriminalmugsme, and
thenthe policemanrainsblowsuponthe mugger,the policemanis a governmentagent
whohas actedin this scenarioas an avenger.
Vigilantesare a trickycategory.A vigilanteis a privatepartywhostill wieldsviolence
whenthereis no immediateemergency.Predictably,the vigilantebelieveshimselfto be
an avengerand not a spoliator.Nevertheless,as this chaptershallelucidate,the vigilante
is morelikelyto be a spoliatorthanan avengeranyway.If an assailantis chasingafter
Marywithhis axe,and she killshim,thatis self-defense,and Maryis an avenger.But in