18 votes

What makes law "legitimate?" - A question from an anarchist - posed to the minarchist

So the "anarchist vs minarchist" debate is on pretty strong here at the DP. I like it, let's keep that topic open. Jan, Marc, and BILL3 have been doing well at keeping this topic alive at the DP.

So one thing that minarchists claim to be SO NECESSARY that a government or state court system supposedly has, is the "power to pass and enforce legitimate laws."

So minarchists basically say that "state courts are necessary in order to enforce laws, and the authority of the court is the highest possible authority. Without these state courts, under anarchy or voluntarism, there would be no "way of addressing criminals and criminal activites efficiently or correctly."

And then the minarchists go on to pose questions like "What makes the NAP valid at all?" "Why should the NAP be binding on others?" and "Why should property rights be binding on others?" In a non-statist world?

So minarchists are basically saying "The NAP (property rights) is not necessarily valid or binding. That is why we need a valid and binding court system."


But here is where I see a major problem for statists and minarchists. We do have states right now. We do have courts right now. We do have a "limited govermnent" that is supposedly "bound in its limits" outlined in "the constitution."

So here is my question to you minarchists. You want a constitution; you have one. You want a "limited government," you have one, the constitution supposedly guarantees this.

But WHAT IS BINDING about laws passed by the state and limits found in the constitution????


Because it seems that we have these laws and these courts. But WHEN THE GOVERNMENT breaks the limits, breaks the law, doesn't follow the constitution... WHAT IS THE RESULT? Are corrupt politicians and judges tried? Don't we see the government and its employees, agents, departments and agencies BREAKING THE SACRED LAWS left and right without recourse?

So to turn this line of questioning "What makes it valid?" (In reference to the NAP or property rights.) Let me turn this line of questioning around and ask you the same about the "sacred court system" that you statists insist is necessary to HAVE JUSTICE.

In other words, "Is your sacred court REALLY SO SACRED?"

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I don't think it's valid

or at least not sportsmanlike for you two abandon our ongoing debate on 'Does it violate NAP' thread without concession or explanation. I will hold off any reading/response to this until we have closed ceremonies on the other debate.

I think that debate is over

I don't recall who I was debating, but I don't think it was you.

Whoever it was, our dialogue revealed that the other party to the debate does not believe that defensive violence can occur after the heat of the moment.

So, we have an intractable difference of opinion.

Having (hopefully) understood one another, we must accept that we do not agree on this fundamental point, and move on.

To continue the debate would be silly when you can't agree on something that basic.

Sorry, kyle

That's my fault. My user name here is BILL3 but lately I've been OneeyedWill3 and MenckensGhost, my old twitter handle.

Yes, you were debating me, and I do hold that retribution after a certain period of time no longer fits the normal definition of self defense. But there was a further problem, if you recall. I granted for sake of discussion a nonstandard definition which allows us to call retribution by an actual eye witness or victim self defense for the purposes of making NAP sensible with regard to justice/punishment.

The problem here is that to all witnesses, the person attacking in retribution just looks like an aggressor. People would be justified in shooting him down as he got his revenge, on NAP.

Furthermore, I pointed out that it would never be possible for anyone besides eye witnesses or victims to have the level of certainty that justifies a person's immediate or retributive self defense. The third party will always be acting aggressively in harming the accused, since he doesn't know his guilt or innocence at that level that justifies self defense.

This brought up the problem of jurisdiction. On NAP ethic, there doesn't seem to be jurisdiction for third parties to capture, hold and punish people on suspicion or accusation. It would not be self defense, even on the expanded non standard definition, since the acting parties are not certain of the guilt.

This brought up the problem of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the arbitrary number of jurors, the fact that a jury is in its basic essence a mob, just with rules for its lynchings, and how none of this comports well with the absolute rights individualism. No mob should be able to strip the rights of an individual on NAP, except in defensive action against an attacker.

You left the debate without conceding these points or addressing them at all.

I also responded to your challenge to go back and forth with one question and one answer, and you abandoned that exchange without explanation, which was moving in a different direction than the impasse of the applications of the concept self defense to third party hired agents.

Oh, OK

I didn't realize you had three different user names. Good idea (if you have 3 different IP and MAC addresses to go with them).

I left the debate once it appeared to me once I estimated that there was nothing further to be learned.

I think you did a very good job of laying out your position in one post with multiple (like 14?) numbered points.

I am not so naive as to think that you are going to change anyone's mind in most Internet debates. So, I just take what I can from it, and move on (and, even if you did, what difference would it make....really).

If you narrowly construe "self defense" temporally, and you narrowly construe "enough certainty to act," in regards to self defense, then I don't see any gaping holes in your logic, although I find these narrow constructions to be anti-human in important regards.

I could nickel and dime you with observations such as: "empirically, eye witnesses are much less reliable than other forms of evidence, etc.," but do I really want to stoop to that level?


You have your ideas. I have mine. I don't see much point in arguing about it.

The idea of "a state" is inexorably linked to the idea of a monopoly on violence within a specific geographic region.

There are empirical factors which make this true (regarding defensive strategy, etc.).

Therefore, the best that we can hope for is that you and I both get the chance to test our ideas within a particular geography with like minded people (however unlikely it is that this will come to pass).

No kyle, try to keep up

This is the Daily Paul, we have a user number (click your name). I am user 455-something. I am BILL3. But we can change our display handle when it tickles our fancy, because we are libertarian kinds of people and sometimes like to play with our identity. For right now, I am possessed by H L Menckens ghost.

21 points, some multi-paragraphed.

My narrow constructions, as you say, are actually normal, standard ways of defining words. We don't call the verdict of a jury in a retributive court sentence 'self defense,' because it's not. Self-defense is a perfectly good phrase for self defense. Justice is a perfectly good phrase for justice. They are different conceptually and in nature, and require different words. It's really your attempt to conflate the two and make us poorer by a few words, in order to cram separate concepts into the standard NAP formula, that is invalid.

If you want to make NAP sound, just reformulate it. The reason your definitions are not sound is because you are forced to credit jury or other third party jurisdiction as valid, which establishes the entire principle of group power over individuals on the basis of majority consensus. This is at odds with the absolute individualism implied by NAP, and lays the groundwork for all kinds of majority consensus rulings on individual rights.

Like I recently said

in another post, I find semantic debates about what words "should mean" to be boring, tedious, and sophomoric (although they are important in a mass media sense).

I have explained what I mean when I use the word "self defense" and you have explained what you mean.

We now understand what each other mean, and so arguing about it is rather pointless from the perspective of gaining further enlightenment.

You continue to be wrong about juries being some sort of democratic consensus. They are exactly the opposite. But we have now covered that ground twice, or maybe 3 times. Something that is less likely to result in a NAP violation than individual action cannot be regarded as more likely to cause a NAP violation, and thereby be less "libertarian." It simply does not compute.

Now, I agree with you that you can continue to tweak and qualify statements of general philosophical principles such as NAP until they look like the 80,000 pages of garbage in the federal register we see each year. But to do so is to miss the entire point of having general philosophical principles.

If you're the one using non-standard definitions ofwords

without announcing it beforehand, and then arguing for these definitions, it is you who is engaged in a semantic debate.

My points hold on the standard definitions, and even granting non standard ones. My points are about the concepts; even if we use the word 'self defense' for what normally is called retributive justice by third parties, on the basis of uncertain evidence and a verdict, we are still dealing with a concept or principle.

In this case, that principle is that there is a right, or jurisdiction, for groups to claim power over individuals on the basis of suspicion, accusation, and uncertain evidence, and to deprive those individuals of their supposedly inalienable rights on the basis of rules decided upon arbitrarily by the group in question.

If that principle is valid, making justice possible, it is also valid when that group decides to make a quarantine or draft mandatory. It follows from precisely the same principle of group jurisdiction over the individual, and the jurisdiction or right to deprive individuals of supposed rights on the basis of threats to the group. Plague or invasion is a far worse peril than a single guilty assailant on the loose.

You could counter that the principle is not danger to the group, but rather the guilt of the individual; that all justice must be grounded in self defense or retribution against someone who has committed aggression.

But if you are willing to extend the self defense concept gratuitously to cover third party retributive rulings, it is no more a stretch to extend the principle of aggression to an individual who violates a quarantine, carries a germ, deserts a community during an attack, throws open his private gates to an enemy, or does not provide water to the thirsty during a drought despite his abundance.

Once you grant that the group is empowered to exact retribution in the name of individual victims on the basis of uncertain info, and that it has the jurisdiction to judge, it has the same power for less clear choices.

The absurd consequences and harm that attend permitting germ carriers to travel freely during quarantine or other examples render NAP absurd. Just as its absurd to let a suspected killer exit the jurisdiction before a trial, and just as its absurd to require absolute certainty of guilt when such absolutes are hardly ever going to happen, it's just as absurd to not violate individuals liberty in cases of other huge threats.

Yes, juries are essentially democratic.

They are the bodies delegated by the public mob to decide the guilt or innocence of an individual. They may have more rules and restrictions than a lynch mob, but that doesn't make them less an instrument of the public will. Unanimity is a cute way to vindicate a decision, but it is equivalent in practice to a majority of a greater pool. Here's why:

If a jury of twelve didn't reach the decision the mob wanted, most of the time, the public / mob could just reduce the number used on juries until it reached an often enough favorable ruling. A panel of two persons could easily substitute 12 jurors if the public / mob wanted fewer people to walk on a hung jury.

A 75 majority out of 100 persons is equivalent in its frequency of guilty verdicts to some quantity or value of jurors requiring unanimous agreement; maybe 12, maybe some other number. They are interchangeable and both stem from the validity of the mob to judge individuals on the basis of uncertain info, which, no matter how you plead, is different from self defense in the heat of the situation, and less certain.

A victim who shoots back at an attacker is 100% certain; someone who judges based on testimony is not 100%. That is a difference of degree as well as kind.

If you are unable to understand that juries can be less certain than direct eye witnesses, then you are just in denial about something that's obvious because you've dug your heels in on a faulty argument.

The problem here

is that you are incorrectly inferring or concluding some sort of collective "right" or "authority" which transcends individual authority.

As I observed when we started this debate, we would be much better off to discuss NAP, justice, etc. in the context of two individual actors interacting in a stateless society before we drag political structures into the mix.

If we cannot agree on what constitutes justified use of violence between two individuals, then obviously we are not going to agree when you muddy the water by dragging group politics into the mix.

My arguments concerning principles do not depend on group consensus. Political structures and procedures are merely how a group of individuals sharing a like-minded set of principles attempt to implement their principles in the real world.

The only "leap" required to abstract from the individual actor to the group is (1) the right of contract, and (2) the principle that one person can come to the defense of another person who is subjected to aggression.

So, let's go back to square 1. Is the individual justified in responding with violence against someone who has violated NAP against them? Can they only respond with violence in the heat of the moment, or are they justified in responding with violence at some later time?

NAP is irelevant

with just two individual actors; there, force would be the deciding factor.

Only when third parties enter in to enforce certain rules does right/wrong/ethics become relevant. And with it comes all the problems of jurisdiction, definitions of property, burden of proof, standards of evidence, the right of groups to violate self ownership/commit aggression on suspicion or accusation, the principle of judging based on arbitrary consensus, the level of certainty required, etc.

These are all normal legal principles and don't require fanciful new theories from crackpots like Rothbard, et al who think parents should starve their kids, and the other absurdities that follow from their half-baked ideas which have no regard for history, collective experience, trial and error, custom, etc.

If NAP holds, and if self-ownership holds, than you can't take possession of another person or deprive them of rights based on claims or payments from third parties. If you do, you're just as much an aggressor as anyone else.

You said:

"with just two individual actors; there, force would be the deciding factor.

Only when third parties enter in to enforce certain rules does right/wrong/ethics become relevant."


That is a preposterous statement.

If "might makes right" when 2 people interact, then "might makes right" when 200 million interact.

And, perhaps that is really your argument after all. The stronger gang is "right;" end of story (whether it is a gang of 1 or of a million).

But, if that is your philosophy, then you just need to say so, so that we can stop wasting our time. Because it is such a trivial philosophy, that it can scarcely be called a philosophy at all.

Clearly, anything other than a trivial political philosophy will have something to say about how two people interact, and will place value judgments on which behaviors are "right" and which are "wrong." Indeed, contemplating the interaction of ONLY two individuals is the best way to bring clarity to many philosophical questions. Political philosophy establishes general principles for how people "should" act, not how they "will" act.

That said, your desire to dodge this question reveals more than, perhaps, you intend.

Hey, I got one for you

Since you want to discuss moral ontology...

After an asteroid strike, there are two survivors in a specific area.

One of them, Fred, found a nice little oasis of greenery and a team of oxen, who miraculously escaped the conflagration. He homesteads this little patch. There are no other oases for miles around.

Beepop, the other survivor, straggles in, half starved to death, and lights upon Fred's little camp. He wants some food, but Fred tells him to go to hell.

Beepop decides he's good as dead in two days, so he eats his last remaining milky way bar and musters his remaining strength for a fight.

Fred, realizing his situation is precarious and not wanting to feed everyone who straggles in, gets ready to defend himself by killing Beepop, hoping the next straggler is less male.

They fight. Who is morally right?

Since you have a sound moral ontology that holds in all cases of conflict, and is true, you should be able to decide who is right.

I see no

ontological questions at hand, either with what I said, or with what you said. Maybe you just reached for the wrong 5 dollar word, and meant epistemological?

But, by all means, keep dancing.


"If "might makes right" when 2 people interact, then "might makes right" when 200 million interact."

This is a question of moral ontology, or moral reality.

The discussion we've been having is what follows assuming NAP is true.

With just two people, if both think they're right, it doesn't matter which one is "really right" in the context of that conflict; if they're willing to fight, the victory goes to the stronger.

The question of which is "really right" becomes relevant when a third party intrudes the conflict to take a side.

We aren't debating what is "really right and wrong." That would be a discussion of moral ontology. Perhaps I think aggression is always right. This would be entirely irrelevant to the discussion, because we're figuring out what follows assuming NAP is right. We're drawing out the consequences from NAP being true. If NAP is true, then....

Epistemology would be how we come to know something, sources of knowledge, even less related to the actual discussion.

I didn't say 'Might makes right'

I said, if there are just two individuals in the dispute, willing to fight, then the deciding factor is might.

Questions of which side is 'in the right' only arise when the dispute is adjudicated by third parties.

Up til now we haven't been discussing what is actually right, or how the 'right' is derived. We have just been discussing the implications if the NAP, as standardly formulated, is right, and that's the discussion I'm interested in at the moment.

Deeper level discussions about moral ontology have been had elsewhere and will again, but that is not the discussion here, and so it's no good to dodge into a different discussion.

It is just as true to say

that the "deciding factor" in any dispute among any number of people is might.

A political philosophy expresses (implicitly or explicitly) a value judgement about right and wrong.

Contra your Armageddon example, above, I have already pointed out numerous times that a political philosophy is a statement of general principles which serve as a heuristic guide to action in the real world, and that any political philosophy can be reduced to absurdity by a particular set of circumstances (whether contrived as in your example, or actually occurring).

You are still dancing.

In the case of the two people

They're both convinced that they're right and willing to fight. That's why it's a dispute that needs arbitration. They aren't sitting down to discover the correct nature of moral reality, and then delineate their actions in comparison to their findings.

The (presumably) neutral third party is going to determine the dispute on the basis of some rule. In the case of this discussion, the non aggression principle. Who's the aggressor? Who initiated the force?

The justification for anarchism is most often the claim that the non aggression principle forbids action against people who aren't using force. Government uses force in cases other than self defense, and so it is wrong. Why is aggression wrong? Because of self ownership. Aggression violates natural self ownership. This is the dominant strain of anarchism from Rothbard, deriving natural rights from self ownership, deriving the non aggression principle therefrom, and attempting to define property rationally from first principles.

It starts with IS, and attempts to demonstrate OUGHT.

I've pointed out that the problem here is that self ownership and NAP also preclude enforcement. Things the arbitration group would need to do, like arrest, hold, try, judge, and sentence.

These functions would not be self defense, and the third party has no right, no jurisdiction, and no certainty. Only if some other principle overrides NAP, giving the general public jurisdiction over individual rights, can dispute resolution occur.

If a random person has the right to form a personal opinion about Bob's guilt, and then attack him, this is not self defense, and so is not in accordance with NAP. He is committing aggression against the accused. Any two parties who disagree about Bob's guilt can claim the right to fight each other over Bob's fate, even though neither was attacked by Bob, and neither is acting in self defense, and neither knows with any certainty the truth of the case.

Therefore, NAP is an unsound basis for rejecting government, since it requires its own violation to be enforced. NAP requires government action to settle disputes between individuals against their will and to do so not in self defense, contradicting NAP and self ownership.

The point of those other examples like extreme and exigent circumstances is just to show that NAP is just a rule adopted by people who already claim the right to control other people's fate, not an inviolable truth rooted in "natural law" as Rothbard claimed, and his followers on here claim. Therefore, the present government could use NAP as a mere rule in deciding cases, even though it violates it.

NAP either applies to its enforcers, or does not. If it does, they can't enforce it. If it doesn't, then any government can use NAP; it just doesn't apply to them, and their jurisdiction to judge other men on mere probability is grounded in some other principle that overrides NAP.

You were diverting the discussion into moral ontology, worrying about who's "really right" when two people fight, and so I gave you a scenario to show that in cases of conflict like the one I outline, NAP would lead to absurd consequences.

You can say I'm dancing, but it's more like we're dancing together, me leading, you stumbling.

In response to this post

and the prior one:

The fact that you see it as an ontological question while I see it as an epistemological question may go to the heart of deep differences in our thought processes which makes it difficult for us to communicate. I see no question of existence here. But I do see questions of knowledge (i.e. how do we know what we think we know).

But, that is neither here no there. These are just taxonomical boxes created (probably) by some dead white guys.

But, even if we cannot agree on the larger issues, I wonder if we can agree about what our disagreements are.

At this point, I see them mainly as two-fold.

1. I see "reactive violence" after the heat of the moment as a continuation of "self defense," whereas you see it as a new aggression.

2. I see coming to the assistance of another person who has been or is being victimized by aggression as a legitimate extension of the "self defense" principle, whereas you see it as illegitimate, presumably based on a relative lack of certainty relative to the original victim.

I would add that we might have disagreements concerning "certainty" in general, since I do not think any such thing exists in the material world (as explained in one of my early responses to you). Further, I think that it is possible for a third party to be as certain, or even more certain, than an original victim (and I could easily contrive a thought experiment to demonstrate this possibility if necessary).

Would you agree that these statements fairly summarize our major points of disagreement?



My position, as statd, can be true

and I think it is, without endorsing the mafia.

The reason any laws at all are legit is because the individual living in the law-area is dependent for his rights on the third-party willingness to come to his defense. Therefore, his is beholden to the group for defense, and can't make demands against it that will cause it to withdraw its defense, unless of course he is happy to be without its defense. Then he is free to live outside law and its defense, and have no rights defense other than his might or what he can hire.

This does not imply that there are no other criteria that makes for good laws or bad laws. It does not imply that people can't fight back against unfair laws. People are always free to decide if the laws aren't worth the protection they get, and have a peaceful or non peaceful revolution.

The question is more basic than the justice or injustice of particular laws. The question is about what makes any rule or law legitimate. This question applies to anarchic and private law agents as well. What makes the trial judgment of a group of jurors or arbitrators binding or valid to overturn the liberty of the accused individual?

What allows the ancap tribunal to decide guilt and impose its rules on violators? What gives jury (organized lynch mob) or a arbitration panel the jurisdiction to decide the guilt or innocence of an accused?

If any rules at all can be enforced, the legitimacy of the enforcing body has to derive from some principle. The principle I offered was that this enforcing body and the public it represents are the source of the rights-protection for the individuals agreeing to live in its area of applicability.

If that's not true, then no laws can ever be enforced.

What's the difference between a minarchist and a statist?

One likes a few more laws than the other.

While I loved your first post

and like you personally, and think you have the sound makings of a really interesting and realist worldview, your pretense to intellectual rigor in this dalliance with anarchism is weak and I can easily catch you in contradictions with just a short series of questions.

1. Do you support any laws?

I don't need to have anarchy

I don't need to have anarchy explained to me as being a utopian ideology, I already know it is. It is as utopian as believing limited government is sustainable.

At least anarchists are principled in their impractical ideology, while minarchists are willing to compromise with statist ideology in their equally unrealistic beliefs.

I know enough about human nature to know that any utopian salvation will not happen left in our hands. I put my faith in God for salvation, because there might be salvation through him, while there is a zero percent chance humans will bring salvation to the world.

Zero government, limited government, and total government are not systems to choose from, they are part of a natural cycle that occurs. You cannot keep a consistent state of anarchy, and you cannot keep a consistent state of minarchy, as it defies human nature. Change is the only constant.

Sustainable is open to interpreation

No system is permanently stable so why bother with a straw man argument? Realistic minarchists don't claim they're indefinitely sustainable. A realistic minarchist realizes that natural inequality tends toward concentration of power, wealth, corruption and so on, in a state of freedom. There is no such thing as political equilibrium.

The least stable system though is surely anarchist, which is stable for about three seconds before political force of some kind fills the vacuum.

The idea of sustainable anarchy is like trying to balance 12,000 lubed up beach balls permanently in the shape of a pyramid.

Minarchism is like build a bridge and hoping it lasts a century or two before collapsing.

Plus, you didn't answer my question about whether you support any laws. At least you're realistic enough to know that if you answer my questions you will be caught in a contradiction in short order.

I think your

inherent instability argument is probably correct. This is not a new argument. Plato (I think?) argued the same. A cycle. Something like, anarchy->democracy->minarchy->maxarchy->autarky->dictatorship->anarchy (or something like that).

Apparently, it has to do with the persistence of memory, or something.

So when things become so

So when things become so corrupt that its time to reset back to minarchism, and voting doesn't work anymore, what does a minarchist do? They have a revolution, and until the next power structure is erected to eventually grow out of control, the power vacuum is called anarchy. It does last only a few minutes until someone wants to start making rules for the good of the many, and at first they begin as reasonable ones. Of course you need weapon wielding enforcers of those rules, or they mean nothing. Terrorism is violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve a political goal, and how would a police officer not fit that definition? You support some terrorism because you are practical.

I like your analogy of minarchism being a bridge that people hope will last a century or two, because when that bridge is beyond repair, the only thing left to do is tear it down, and for a while you have no bridge.

Anarchy would require people to be good people in order for it to work, and there is too many crappy people for it to work, so yes it is not a sustainable system in practical terms. It's a utopian view much like communism (everyone sharing) sounds great until you realize it is not compatible with human nature.

When you ask if I support any laws, you are really asking if I support an organization by popular vote having a near monopoly on violence. I think minarchists view themselves as being practical and accepting that a certain level of statism is necessary. Maybe minarchists should refer to themselves as small "s" statists.

So do I support any laws? No, I do nothing to promote or encourage laws, as well as I do nothing to remove laws. I am forced to tolerate the world I live in, and do the best I can to live by the golden rule myself, and influence what I can personally change around me.

So let me ask you a question since you do support some laws, do you support taxation to implement those laws, thus violating the NAP? If not, how do you fund police department, with donations? Wouldn't that lead to police having very unstable jobs as they cannot be sure of their salaries being paid? Wouldn't that add to the temptation of corruption? I would think wild swings in funding from year to year would be a practical problem a minarchist would recognize. Maybe there is a different solution you know of to support police, courts, etc?

You've shifted

from anarchy as a stable system to anarchy as a revolution. Not accurate, a revolution can violently impose a new state immediately without any period of anarchy. Has nothing to do with sustainable anarchism.

Silly suggestion that minarchists call themselves statists. Statism comes from the French Etatism and first used in 1923.

Statism is so new a term that Mises used Etatism.



Total control of the State over individual citizens.

We need to respect words and their definitions, as well as accept their pejorative connotations.

Since you admit anarchism wouldn't last 3 days, you can't really support it sensibly.

You dodged my law question. If you don't support the existence of any laws, that means no one should com to your aid in any circumstances. Might is right.

So without laws no one would

So without laws no one would come to anyone's aid? Might is never "right", but it does tend to get it's way in this wicked world.

If a statist is someone that supports total state control over the individual, and a minarchist supports some state control over the individual, you gotta at least admit statists and minarchists are second or third cousins. Both believe in state control over the people, only to to different degrees.

An anarchist is the opposite of a statist, a minarchist sits somewhere in between, but is not the direct opposite, which means there are common beliefs between the two.


If an anarchist believes in freedom being at a 10, on a scale of 1-10, a minarchist is something like a 7 generally. That's how I view you guys anyways, but it of course varies with the individual. I used to be a minarchist along the way in my evolution, but I weened myself completely off the idea of the state tit being a solution. I do however prefer the term voluntarist over anarchist, because of the negative connotations that come with it. I don't wear a black hoodie, with a bandanna on my face and throw trash cans at starbucks/mcdonald's windows.

Without law

people would defend themselves and come to each others aid like troops of baboons or pack animals, but beyond that, any more prolonged or complex system of justice would require laws.

since people dont want to just like like baboons, except anarchists, we have laws.

since societies with laws are much richer and more powerful, anarchists pretty much don't exist except as a faulty idea.

I compare minarchists to

I compare minarchists to statists, so you compare anarchists to baboons, LOL. You really did put a big smile on my face with that one.

I'm glad you got a chuckle,

and charge it to your account. I also note that you did not deal with the argument, that handling justice via third parties after an altercation is over does require law and does require abridgements of NAP, rendering NAP/anarchy bereft of any possible justice beyond group/pack attack during the event itself.

I note too that I didn't compare anarchists as individuals to baboons, but rather drew an analogy to how groups of animals defend themselves, in contrast to civilization, which employs law and justice.