A Flaw in the Limited-Government Case

A flaw in the limited-government advocate's brief against statelessness is the overlooked fact that the state is not a homogeneous blob. It is a group of individuals who cooperate to accomplish certain ends (for good or ill). No superstate compels their cooperation. That is, they exist in a state of anarchy with respect to one another. In other words, widespread, decisive cooperation goes on everyday without state supervision or enforcement. QED.

Limited-government advocates thus reify the state as much as other statists do.

Another way of putting my point: the minarchist's goverment is un-praxeological. The state does not seem to consist of individuals who need reasons (incentives) to act in the ways the minarchist assumes. Rather it's as if the state were a single acting entity that conducts itself appropriately. Why? Because it has no other choice under its constitution.

This assumes away all the interesting problems -- e.g., why do armed people (police, soldiers) carry out the orders of unarmed people (dictators, kings, presidents, prime ministers)?

It is unreal.

You can see this argument more fully developed in the last chapter of America's Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited.