Overthrowingthe Anarchists 305the contextof our discussionMaryis not a vigilante.Party 1 is a vigilantewhenParty 1
issuesviolence—violenceParty 1 considersretaliatory—againstParty 2 a considerable
duration(perhapsa day or more)subsequentto Party 1 or a valuedmemberof Party 1 ’s
socialcirclebeingspoliated.
AynRandimploresus to consider“whatwouldhappenif a manmissedhis wallet,
concludedthat he had beenrobbed,” and “brokeinto everyhousein the neighborhoodto
searchit.. .”^12 HarryBinswangersagelysubjoins,“Theattemptto invokeindividual
rightsto justify‘competing’ withthe governmentcollapsesat the firstattemptto concre-
tizewhatit wouldmeanin reality.Picturea bandof strangersmarchingdownMain
Street,submachinegunsat the ready.Whenconfrontedby the police,the leaderof the
bandannounces:‘Me and the boysare onlyhereto see that justiceis done,so you haveno
rightto interferewithus.’ Accordingto the ‘libertarian’ anarchists,in sucha confrontation
the policeare morallyboundto withdraw,on painof betrayingthe rightsof self-defense
and free trade.”^13
Picturea scenariowhereinI do not get alongwitha mannamedRiley,wholivesa
blockfrommy house.We havelongstandinganimosities.Visualizethatoneday,my
houseis burglarized.I immediatelyjumpto the conclusionthatmy neighbormusthave
doneit. In the absenceof any objectiveinvestigation,I decideto becomea privatedefense
agency.I am my owndefenseagency“competing” againstthe nightwatchmanstate.I, as
a vigilante,spray-paintobscenitieson the wallsof Riley’s house.Thenyou comeand tell
me that I haveinitiatedthe use of forceagainstmy neighbor.I say, “Nope.I wasemploy-
ing retaliatoryforceagainsthimfor the usageof forcethathe initiated!He burglarized
my house.Therefore,I exactedretribution.” Takea ganderat howI tookthis actionin the
absenceof solidproofthat Rileyburglarizedme. Is this justifiedretaliatoryforce?Retalia-
toryviolence,on the partof privatecitizens,is justifiedsolelyin casesof emergency
whereimmediateviolentactionis requiredin orderto savesomeone’s life fromextermi-
nation.Whena womanis assaulted,for example,it makessensethat,ratherthansimply
waitfor the policeto arrive,she utilizesviolencein her owndefense,possiblyslayingthe
assailant.However,retributiveaggressionby civiliansisnotjustifiedin casesoutsideof
emergencies;the reasonis thatwheneverindividualschooseto undertakevigilanteac-
tions,thereis an extremelyhighlikelihoodthatthe vigilanteswillspoliateinnocentpar-
ties whomthe vigilanteswronglyassumeto be guilty.
Whenit comesto the exerciseof retaliatoryforce,a fact of especialimportanceis that a
suspect—someonewhois suspectedof spoliatinganotherparty—mightactuallybe inno-
cent.We mightsuspectthatRileyhas burglarizedhomeswhen,in fact,he has not. What
is relevantis thatthereare manycaseswherepeoplemightexerciseviolenceagainst
Riley—believingtheirviolenceto be retaliatoryin nature—whenRileyis actuallyinno-
cent,whichwouldrenderRileyhimselfthe victimof spoliation.Anyviolentpunishment
of an innocentman,underthe hastypresumptionthathe is guiltyof spoliation,would
resultin the spoliationof the innocentman.
Returnto the anarchists’ proclamationthata trulyfreesocietywouldnot preventa
vigilantefromissuingsupposedlyretaliatoryforceagainstpersonspresumedto have
wrongedhim.Theirassumptionis thaton any occasionon whicha vigilanteissueswhat
he believesto be justifiedretaliation,the vigilanteperforceactsin accordancewiththe
pertinentfacts.In effect,the anarchistpositionassumesthatwheneversomeoneseeks
retributionfor spoliation,the identityof the culpritis obvious.The fact is that,in the case
of mostcrimes,the culprit’s identityis not obvious.Imaginethata husbandand wifeare
alonewhenthe husbandkillsthe wifeand disposesof her body.Thatis howmostforms
of spoliationare committed—in secret.Thata suspect’s guiltor innocenceis not obvious
is whatnecessitatesDueProcessof Law.Theremustbe dueprocessin orderto prevent
innocentpeoplefrombeingpunishedfor crimestheydid not actuallycommit.As I will