>>64573
To make at least one argument for this; any argument you can use to ethically justify a minimal state can be applied to a state of any size. For example, Murray Rothbard himself became an anarchist when he was asked by a liberal friend he was debating "you're a minarchist, how do you justify the state providing law?" He gave the standard contract, social contract, people get together to form it this monopoly, whatever. Of course, the response was "why can't this apply to any other industry, for example schooling?" Now of course our Murray was stomped, since he of course couldn't respond. From here, he would either have to be an anarchist or a liberal (or, of course, logically inconsistent).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3HatEn0BjI / https://mises.org/blog/transcript-how-murray-rothbard-became-libertarian
Anyway, I think a lot of so-called minarchists are 'deep down' anarchists but consider themselves 'practical' and since anarcho-capitalism is so 'hard to implement' today, they're not one. The fallacy here is of course suggesting we need to abandon the end goal to make steps towards it. This of course is not true - abolitionism in theory is gradualism in practice, and gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLS-VLQwF9o