Stephan Kinsella tiene escrito un artículo de imprescindible lectura sobre lo que significa ser anarco-capitalista. Para Kinsella, ser anarco-capitalista equivale a estar siempre en contra del inicio de la fuerza. El anarco-capitalista no cree necesariamente que un mercado sin Estado es "práctico", "funciona" o "será una realidad" en el futuro, sino que la agresión no está justificada y el Estado comete, por su naturaleza, agresión.
Copio la reflexión de Kinsella sobre este punto (el artículo está traducido al castellano aquí). No estoy seguro de que la viabilidad del anarco-capitalismo (en el sentido de si es teóricamente concebible y superior al minarquismo) pueda desvincularse de la condición de anarco-capitalista. De hecho la propia tesis de Kinsella reconoce implícitamente la viabilidad del anarco-capitalismo ("The fact that not enough people are willing to respect their neighbors' rights to allow anarchy to emerge", lo que sugiere que la anarquía es posible si suficiente gente la quiere). Sí creo que la condición de anarco-capitalista es independiente de la cuestión de si llegará a materializarse algún día. En cualquier caso, lo más reseñable del artículo de Kinsella es su énfasis en la ética y el principio de no-agresión, relegando el enfoque utilitarista a un segundo plano.
Conservative and minarchist-libertarian criticism of anarchy on the grounds that it won't "work" or is not "practical" is just confused. Anarchists don't (necessarily) predict anarchy will be achieved - I for one don't think it will. But that does not mean states are justified.
Consider an analogy. Conservatives and libertarians all agree that private crime (murder, robbery, rape) is unjustified, and "should" not occur. Yet no matter how good most men become, there will always be at least some small element who will resort to crime. Crime will always be with us. Yet we still condemn crime and work to reduce it.
Is it logically possible that there could be no crime? Sure. Everyone could voluntarily choose to respect others' rights. Then there would be no crime. It's easy to imagine. But given our experience with human nature and interaction, it is safe to say that there will always be crime. Nevertheless, we still proclaim crime to be evil and unjustified, in the face of the inevitability of its recurrence. So to my claim that crime is immoral, it would just be stupid and/or insincere to reply, "but that's an impractical view" or "but that won't work," "since there will always be crime." The fact that there will always be crime - that not everyone will voluntarily respect others' rights - does not mean that it's "impractical" to oppose it; nor does it mean that crime is justified. It does not mean there is some "flaw" in the proposition that crime is wrong.
Likewise, to my claim that the state and its aggression is unjustified, it is disingenuous and/or confused to reply, "anarchy won't work" or is "impractical" or "unlikely to ever occur." The view that the state is unjustified is a normative or ethical position. The fact that not enough people are willing to respect their neighbors' rights to allow anarchy to emerge, i.e., the fact that enough people (erroneously) support the legitimacy of the state to permit it to exist, does not mean that the state, and its aggression, are justified.
Por tanto, al final todo se reduce a esta pregunta: ¿estás en contra de la agresión, o a favor? Si tu respuesta es la primera, eres anarquista.
