“may well be better off without him.”nBanfield makes it clear that the high-timenpreference person’s lack of a steady jobnis not due to lack of “employment opf>ortunities,”nbut because this sort of personnhas no intention of subjecting himself tonthe discipline of engaging in full-timensteady work.nIn his trenchant analysis Banfield consciouslynharks back to the great politicalnphilosophers of the West, particuladynHobbes, Locke, and Hume. In Leviathan,nHobbes pointed out that there would benno need for government if everyonenobeyed the dictates of reason and naturalnlaw, for then there would be social peace.nBut instead, government is requirednbecause of people acting on “their perversendesire of present profit.” Humenwrites about government being madennecessary because “men are not able radicallynto cure, either in themselves or others,nthat nanowness of soul which makesnthem prefer the present to the remote.”nIt is all too clear that in recent decades,ngovernment in the United States hasnlost its reason, its being, since the hightimenpreference street criminals havenincreasingly been allowed to run riot.nWe are being plunged, at an acceleratingnrate, into the sort of horrible criminalnanarchy that no libertarian or “anarcho-capitalist”nwould countenance for onenmoment. What, then, can be done?nThe first step toward a solution is tonidentify the problem. The problem is notnpoverty, unemployment, discrimination,nor lack of playgrounds for youth; the problemnis the proliferation of a criminal classnof people that Banfield defines as “thenlower class,” marked by trails centeringnaround high-time preference and presentorientationnleading to massive streetncrime. It is well-known that virtually allnstreet crime is committed by males fromnthe onset of puberty until their late 20’s.nThe problem, then, cannot lie in povertynor discrimination since females are, onnthe average, poorer than males, and surelynsuffer from no less discrimination.nIndeed, it is only sensible for the policento keep a particularly wary eye on groupsnlikely to be a source of street crime.nSome years ago, my wife and I purchasedna used police car, with a powerful engine,njust the sort of car beloved by hot-roddingnteenagers. We found that we were oftennaccosted by the traffic cops, even thoughntooling along well within the speed limit.nThe cop would shine his flashlight atnour placid and nonthreatening middleagednfaces, and then stammer somen48/CHRONICLESnpatent fiction, such as “your right taillightnis cracked.” Although it was not exactlynpleasant to be picked on, we didn’tnthink of suing the police for harassment,nsince it was perfectly proper for them tonkeep a watchful eye on teenage drivers.nIn criticizing the current treatment ofncrime, conservatives have denounced thencoddling of criminals in light sentences,nparole, and luxury accommodations innthe prisons. All this is well and good, butnit misses the central point, which is notnso much that retaliation or punishmentnshould be severe, as that it should be swiftnand immediate. The chief problem is thendelay of punishment: the entire “process,”nbeloved by liberals and the ACLU, ofnarraignment, bail, indictment, lengthy trialnprocedures, and appeals. The fault isnthe process itself that delays punishmentnto what the high-time preference criminalnsees as the remotely distant future.nSometimes the delay and the argumentnbecome ludicrous. After appeals hadnkept Sacco and Vanzetti in death row fornyears, leftists began saying it was “cruelnand unusual punishment” to keep thesenmurderers so long awaiting execution—nreminiscent of the old joke about thenman who murdered his parents and thennpleaded for mercy as an orphan.nShort of the unacceptable idea ofnincarcerating all males from the onset ofnpuberty in preventive detention, the onlynsolution to the problem of street crimenis to make sure that the criminal willnface—^and expect to face—instant counterforce,nboth by his victim and by thenpolice. The solution, then, comes inntwo parts. First, permit and encouragenevery citizen to be armed to the teeth andnready to defend himself with maximumnand not minimum force. Right now, innour cities, victims have been effectivelyndisarmed. Gun and other weapons controlnhave deprived the average citizen ofnthe right to defend himself adequately.nIn New York City, the happy huntingnground of street crime, people are notnonly deprived of guns, but they cannotneven carry Mace, and women are notnallowed to carry hat pins in their pursesnfor self-defense. Moreover, laws preventnpeople from using more than absolutelynminimum force in self-defense;neveryone has the legal obligation to run,nand your back must be literally against thenwall before you can tum and use force tondefend yourself against criminals.nAll this must be changed. Criminalsnhave got to know that, should they messnwith anyone, they are more likely to getnnnclobbered by their victims. Even ProfessornBanfield, no friend of Appalachiannculture, admits that, even though thenpeople there are highly present-oriented,ntheir crime rate is low. For “in a societynthe culture of which is present-oriented,none’s knowledge that others are as hottemperednas oneself is apt to constituten(despite Hobbes and the other politicalnphilosophers) an effective social control.”n”In such a culture,” Banfieldnadds, “people are likely to go to greatnlength to avoid giving accidental offensento others, out of fear of provoking quicknreprisals.”nThe great desideratum was oncendemonstrated in a short story by MickeynSpillane. Mike Hammer, hearing annoise downstairs, gets out his gun andnquietly pads down the stairs, when he seesnsomeone trying to open his safe. Immediately,nMike blows the intruder’s headnoff. No “what are you doing there?” orn”put up your hands or I’ll shoot,” nonholding the guy there while calling thencops and all the rest of that nonsense.nTTiere is instant maximum counterforcenin defense of one’s person or property.nHollywood had it wrong, the wild Westnwas not a lawless society; on the contrary,neveryone was very careful to be courteous.nNext to ending all weapons control, thenmost important step is to unleash thenpolice and encourage them to administerninstant punishment of street criminals.nOnly instant punishment can benunderstood by high-time preference criminals.nDuring the 1930’s, New York City,ndespite the poverty and unemploymentnof the Depression, was virtually free ofnstreet crime. Why? Because the policenengaged in instant beating and clobberingnof the perpetrator, either on the spot orninside the station house. And, morenimportantly, everyone knew it.nThe ACLU and all left-libertariansnwill be predictably horrified at these proposals.nWhat about the “proceduralnrights” of the alleged criminals? As someonenwho is devoted to the natural rightsnof each person, I would reply that suchnrights—^to person and property—^are onlynsubstantive and never procedural. No onencan derive from John Locke anyone’sn”right” to bail, or to put off punishmentnfor three months. Procedures of thencriminal law can only be decided on thenbasis of utility and effectiveness, andnwe have seen that there is no point tonprocedures that delay swift and immediatenpunishment. It is grotesque ton