Far from it.
The reason the Rothbard branch has taken off is because it's coherent.
The question any minarchist has to answer is whence the justification for ethical asymmetry. How can it be permissible for one man to do something another man cannot? All statist, ie collectivist, philosophies wind up being apologia for that question, whether divine right or majority rule or the common good as decided by the party, of course.
If you believe in government by the people, the people cannot delegate any right or power they do not have individually.
Rand and Mises, wonderful as they were, and rightly despising collectivism, yet were themselves collectivists, because they could not bring themselves to fully deny ethical asymmetry required even for a minimal state, which is to say, their philosophies were based on fundamental immorality.
Even Rothbard envisioned some universal libertarian law that would somehow be accepted by nearly all, even if he would have them be administered by private courts.
The body of knowledge supporting a free society is large and grows every day. The question isn't whether it would work, if you do question that you haven't been reading, and you've never been camping
The valid question is whether it's feasible or possible to achieve with all of the world indoctrinated into evil. But if the bad guys don't manage to shut down the internet, I think it is possible, perhaps inevitable, given time.
What you statists need to answer is, why so afraid? Why is it so important not to even allow some small geographic area to be free? If you're so sure it wouldn't work, surely statism will be vindicated and freedom will fail.