>>674295>Minarchy doesn't work.To state that minarchism doesn't work when we have no modern working model to examine is empty-handed.
>How about enforcing contracts?Falls under protecting people. If one were to make a contract with another and renege on it in a way that the first party became unfairly advantageous, then it would constitute as a violation of the second parties rights and government interference would be justified.
>Preventing uncompetitive practices, economic collusion and monopolies?People must be allowed to run their businesses as they wish, so long as they don't interfere with the rights of others. It is not the safest option, but it is the most ethical.
>Rights are nebulous.Rights are both universal and objective.
>You surrender "rights" in order to be part of a civil society. Government is what makes concepts like personal property possible.Government has no monopoly on the dictation of rights. As well, government has no hand in realizing concepts like 'personal property,' outside of ensuring that human rights to personal property are not infringed upon.
>It's a trade-off, the unlimited rights of anarchy verses the tranquility and prosperity of a civil society.It is entirely arguable that an anarchist society may be both tranquil and prosperous, especially in one with the necessary respect of individual liberties. A limited government by nature encourages creativity and self-reliance in its adherents, and these qualities can provide a measure of the government's success.