When ÁTVR closed the Vínbúðinn in Fáskrúðsfjörður, the state abandoned the settlement. The explanation was simple: the business was unsustainable. A service that was supposed to be so vital that no one else could provide it was shut down as soon as it stopped paying for itself.
A few weeks later, the private company Santé had opened a liquor store in the town's supermarket. Service was restored and the grocery store's operating base was strengthened. What the state did not trust itself to do, a private entity solved in a flash.
That's a cause for celebration. But it raises questions.
If the state believes it cannot maintain the service, why should it continue to have a monopoly on it?
Therein lies the paradox. The government justifies the monopoly by saying that it is necessary to regulate access and protect public health. Yet the same monopolist leaves a small community as soon as the business stops paying for itself and leaves it to private parties to ensure what was supposed to be too important to entrust to anyone else. The goal then turns out not to ensure service, but to maintain an arrangement that is increasingly unsustainable.
The state monopoly legislation is a child of its time. It was created when markets were closed, transportation was restricted, and online shopping was unknown. Today, Icelanders order alcohol from foreign online stores and have it delivered to their homes, buy it in restaurants and breweries. Access is no longer determined by whether the state runs a store in a particular location. It is difficult to argue that the monopoly itself is a prerequisite for public health.
The Chamber of Commerce has rightly pointed out the paradox inherent in this: foreign entities in some cases enjoy broader rights than domestic companies. The Council has also demonstrated that the state can ensure all public health considerations - licensing, supervision, age limits and alcohol taxes - without operating retail stores itself.
Icelandic society has long since abolished most other state monopolies. The state does not operate bakeries, gas stations, telephone networks, or banks by virtue of a monopoly. The reason is simple: competition always delivers better service, greater flexibility, and greater efficiency than a public monopoly. Alcohol sales should be no exception.
This is not about lifting regulations or making alcohol like any other consumer product. It is about recognizing the obvious: the state does not have to stand behind the counter itself to ensure responsible sales. It can set clear conditions, grant operating licenses, conduct active monitoring and impose sanctions when the law is broken. This is exactly how we have chosen to regulate the sale of numerous other regulated products.
Fáskrúðsfjörður has thus become a symbol of a larger issue. Where the state gave up, a private entity stepped in. The residents received services again and the town's trade strengthened.
It is hard to think of a better argument for why the time for a state monopoly on alcohol sales is simply over.
Ragnar Sigurðsson
Leader of the Independence Party in Fjarðabyggð and a member of the abstinence movement