Comment: To clarify:

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Exactly. Anarchism has its (see in situ)

To clarify:

When I say that many minarchists view anarcho-capitalism as utopian, I mean utopian in its end-state. That is, even if we had a magic button which could bring an anarcho-capitalist society into being, they believe it would collapse (evolve into a state or states) due to internal contradictions. Now, how we get from here to there (whether "there" is minarchism or anarcho-capitalism) is another problem altogether. As you say, the path from the present world to minarchism is only marginally easier than the path to anarcho-capitalism, and so for that reason I don't think this is a very strong argument against anarcho-capitalism. To be effective, minarchist critiques of anarcho-capitalism should focus on the inherent contradictions of anarcho-capitalism as an end-state, never mind the practical politics of how to bring it about in the first place. Incidentally, even though I now consider myself an anarcho-capitalist, my vision of a possible anarcho-capitalist society differs substantially from the popular Rothbardian vision of a competitive dispute resolution industry. I agree with the minarchists that such a system is inherently contradictory and cannot exist, but I think it is a non sequitur to then claim that the state is inevitable. In other words, I believe it is inevitable to have a monopolist dispute resolution organization, but I also believe it is possible for such an organization to be non-aggressive.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."