in all cases where force
has to be exercised against persons outside their own group as well as
in it, some organisation must exist between the groups--a State--in
order to determine the conditions under which force can be
exercised.... For these reasons I consider pure Anarchy an
impossibility; it rests upon a misunderstanding, and is founded upon
the mingling of two things which are by nature entirely different....
Anarchy is the rule of an individual over himself; but the actions of
an individual in self-defence, however just they may be, are not
founded entirely upon self-ownership, but are of a mixed nature, since
they include rule over one's self and over others. The object of
Anarchy is self-government, but we exceed the sphere of
self-government as soon as we stretch out our hand to exercise force.
The error which pure Anarchists commit lies in the fact that they
apply the ideas of self-government, self-ownership, or freedom to
force. Between actions of freedom and actions involving force a line
must necessarily be drawn, which separates them for ever. As far as
concerns a question of free will, _e. g._, the posting of letters,
arrangements for education, all contracts of labour and capital, we
can dispense with any authority; we can be Anarchists, because in
these cases it is not necessary for me or for you to exercise or to
undergo compulsion. We may leave the group whose actions we do not
approve of, we may stand alone as individuals, we may follow
exclusively the law of our nature; but the moment we proceed to
measures of defence, to actions implying limitation or discipline, to
actions which encroach upon the self-ownership of others, the whole
state of things is altered. The moment force has to be exercised, an
apparatus of force must be set up; if we wish to exercise force, it
must be publicly proclaimed, and we must publicly agree upon what
conditions it is to be applied; it must be surrounded by guarantees
and so on. Force and the unconditional freedom of the individual, or
Anarchy, are incompatible ideas, and therefore I am a Voluntarist, not
an Anarchist--a Voluntarist in all questions where Voluntarism is
admissible; but I return into the State when by the nature of things
some organisation is necessary."

[8] The answer is obvious: the inhabitants of Texas.

Practically Auberon Herbert's distinction of terms is merely playing
with words; for the "voluntary State," which I can leave at any
mom