För flera år sedan debatterade jag mot en libertarian/anarkist som insisterade på att Islands historia bevisar att vi minsann inte behöver någon stat dvs ett våldsmonopol för att kunna leva i ett (någorlunda) ett fritt och civiliserat samhälle.
Under anarkismens Island löste man problemen associerade med anarki genom att “istället” förlita sig på en institution som reglerade våldsutövande efter lagar. Man undvek alltså anarkismens problem genom att upprätta en . . . de facto stat.
Jag kom att tänka på denna gamla diskussion när jag häromdagen stötte på detta citat av den klassiske liberalen Auberon Hebert. I detta citat kritiserar anarkister som envisas med att säga att deras små, “privata” stater inte är stater:
It is not in reality anarchy or “no government.” When it destroys the central and regularly constituted government, and proposes to leave every group to make its own arrangements for the repression of ordinary crime, it merely decentralizes government to the furthest point, splintering it up into minute fragments of all sizes and shapes. As long as there is ordinary crime, as long as there are aggressions by one man upon the life and property of another man, and as long as the mass of men are resolved to defend life and property, there cannot be anarchy or no government.
By the necessity of things, we are obliged to choose between regularly constituted government, generally accepted by all citizens for the protection of the individual, and irregularly constituted government, irregularly accepted, and taking its shape just according to the pattern of each group. Neither in the one case nor in the other case is government got rid of. The more true anarchist, the man who actually gets rid of government, is Tolstoy, who preaches as Christ did, that we should bear all injuries without returning them. In that way, it is true, government can be got rid of—but then how many of us are prepared to follow Tolstoy?
There still remains, as anarchists might urge, another method of dealing with ordinary crimes. Under the theory of “no government,” the defense of person and property, and the punishment of crime might be left absolutely to the individual; and this method, like Tolstoy’s method, would be quite consistent with the true anarchistic theory. I have heard an able anarchist defend it on the ground that men would exercise force with more scrupulousness, when obliged to act in their own persons, than when acting through a judge and policeman. But here again how many of us on the one hand are prepared to judge and to act for ourselves as regards our own wrongs; or on the other hand to consent to the self-made appointment of those—who believe themselves to be injured by us—as our judges and executioners? To most of us such a system could be described only by the word—pandemonium.
Mitt i prick!
Jag stötte först på detta citat i Craig Biddles briljanta uppgörelse med libertarianismen, “Libertarianism vs. Radical Capitalism”.