Minarchy is the idea that humans need, and can maintain, a minimal State. A "night watchman" state. But it rejects that "minimal" can mean "none". If there's more than zero, that amount can be minimized further, which means it is not "minimal".
Minarchists love to call anarchy "Utopian". That's rich coming from followers of the most Utopian idea ever!
Government will never allow itself to be limited. It hasn't in the past, and it won't in the future.
Every attempt to limit government has failed.
The Constitution may have been the final proof of the futility of that desire. It failed, and those who don't want to admit it failed will blame you and me for its failure. As if we could somehow, by some time-traveling magic, stop a failure that occurred well over a hundred years before we were born. It failed almost before the ink was dry.
Don't accept the blame for something that isn't your fault.
Those who advocate for a "night watchman state" seem to be unaware of how states work.
To be an effective night watchman, that state needs to steal. It needs to spy. It needs to determine for you what rights you have, and which rights it is allowed to ignore. It needs the power to punish and to carry out revenge. For this, it demands a monopoly on force. Once it has these powers, there's nothing anyone can do to stop it from growing out of control and seeking more power over more parts of your life.
Minarchy is statism-lite, but it is still statism. Maybe, in very early stages, it is "libertarian-leaning", but it loses this tilt almost immediately, becoming ever more statist as time goes on. Libertarians who then continue to argue in favor of minarchy lose all claims to libertarianism. Anyone pointing this out angers them and makes them lash out at the consistent libertarians- the anarchists.
What I don't understand in all such cases is, if you believe that governing others is a legitimate human endeavor, why get so angry at having this pointed out?... unless you feel guilty and know you're wrong.
