I'm not trying to play semantic games or troll.
I didn't say you were. I just pointed out what appeared (at the time) to just be a difference of definitions and so no point in arguing over it.
I thought Anarchists believed in NO Gubmint.
What "anarchists" varies a lot because that word means different things to different people. So does the word "government". A free market anarchist would have no problem with an organization that fulfills the roles governments are currently filling as long as it operates freely in the market and doesn't attempt a violent monopoly. Such an organization might be referred to as a government by many people based on the services it provides (like protection mainly) but it usually wouldn't be called a state.
Minarchists (or Mini Statists as you refer to them) want minimal Gubmint. As good an idea as Anarchy may sound I don't see how it will not devolve in chaos if the government implodes as not everyone will agree to the NAP. Lead and saltpeter will be worth far more than gold and silver.
You just reminded me why I don't have any enthusiasm for these discussions. It's been long enough that I forgot how people in Internet debates ignore things you've already addressed and you just keep repeating yourself. I thought about just answering such things by quoting myself from earlier and I think I've actually tried that tactic before to see if people realize how much they're failing to address points already made (and if they do realize, they're trolling) and it didn't work so I'll just try to summarize a couple points before I get burnout and give up on this thread.
* Monopoly governments don't prevent the violence you're so afraid of. They just monopolize it and commit crime for more extensively and effectively than the more traditional notion of criminals.
* The fact that you feel a
need for an entity that will use violence objectively and honorably only to protect rights doesn't change that fact. The existence of a need does not mean such an organization can exist while remaining an
unaccountable monopoly (unaccountable
because minarchists insist it must be a monopoly). No amount of magic scrolls (constitutions) or internalized checks and balances on itself are going to compete with the checks and balances of the free market. An "accountable monopoly" is an oxymoron. Even factions warring for control represent more choice and checks and balances on each other versus and single supreme criminal organization which is the real chaos that any mini-state must devolve into by its' unaccountable nature.
Why would a true Anarchist participate in a system he/she doesn't believe in to run for office. Even if it were to destroy it from within he/she would have to be a totally closeted anarchist to have any chance of winning.
Someone who actually has faith in that tactic can try to answer that question.