Minarcho-Capitalism Should be Preferred to Anarcho-Capitalism.

I would like to note that I myself am a minarchist but I have been teetering on the edge of anarchism. If you speak well enough you may change my mind. Regardless, let us begin! Framework The framework of my position can be separated into these talking points: Minarchism is strong where anarchism is weak Minarchism is far more practical to maintain than anarchism. Where Anarchism is Weak, Minarchism is Strong Grudgingly stated, there are undeniable advantages to the existence of a minimalistic government; in fact, one would be useful. I’m not going to spout off the typical rhetoric about monopolies and “muh roads” (which are legitimate concerns, mind you) but I strongly assert that minarchism is strong where anarchism is weak. One of these weaknesses is how crucial services would be operated; services such as fire departments, hospitals, and policing. In anarchism, these services would either be privatized or cease to exist. This could prove problematic in several ways. I typically use this example: fire departments have proven to be an extremely useful and life-saving service. Privatizing them would mean that the owners of fire departments can discriminately select who they provide service to. This puts citizens on their blacklist who might need their service in a very bad place. I understand that those who blacklist civilians will only lose business, but if this takes place in an area with frequent fires, the departments will have this option and civilians shouldn’t be put in the place where they might not have protection from fires. It also means that many fire departments would go out of business. Fires aren’t particularly common in most places and a lack of demand could mean that fire departments could not afford to operate and would close their doors. Many other crucial services like these could also suffer in a similar fashion: police (which are more or less personal protective services in a libertarian ideology. I will address this more in my refortification if I must but I need to save space), hospitals, courts (which would likely cease to exist), and so on; all putting civilians in a very bad place. The minimal existence of a state can fix this by providing only the bare minimum. Taxation may not even be required for such a small amount of services either; however, if you wish me to elaborate on how that I would work I prefer that you ask and I will do so in my refortification. The Impracticality of Maintaining Anarchism Storytime! It’s the year 2019, the government has finally stepped down and in its place there is nothing; pure anarcho-capitalism. In a perfect world, it would stay this way forever and everyone would live happily ever after. Unfortunately, this isn’t a perfect world and within only a few months a band of soldiers have risen up and have begun to capture territory under the direction of their new and very oppressive king. Sadly, all there was to stand in their way was a collection of unorganized fighters and they were quickly and sorrowfully defeated. To me, this is the danger of anarchism. I’m sure you’ve heard this concern before but it is one that needs to be addressed. The likelihood of anarchism to be reverted to some form of authoritarianism by means of conquest is too great to be taken lightly. Even a well-armed public that is willing to defend itself (which is almost always the immediate response, so make sure you completely understand this contention) would eventually prove too weak to defend itself from an invading nation or a malevolent local militia because of its lack of organization. This is another place where minarchism would prove more practical than anarchism. A minimalistic government could provide that organization. No standing army, no draft, no military spending, and certainly no foreign interventions; only organization. This would leave a civilian population much better protected and also means that this applied political philosophy remains intact. You may respond with something along the lines of "it would always be possible that minarchism might be abrogated," but so does every other political philosophy that is made manifest. It simply happens to be that minarcho-capitalism would be much more easily maintained than anarcho-capitalism. Thank you Lupricona for accepting this debate! I had intended for my opening to include more talking points but I feared not having enough space. Either way, I eagerly await your response. Best of wishes and happy debating!