"State"

The debate (whether to keep some small amount of the state) is void. The difference is not in principle, but only in the interpretation of the word "state".

To avoid debates here about the meanings of the words "anarchist" and "minarchist": i introduce new words for at least the extent of this article:
"normalist" - average people [the "normies"]
"smallist" - wants the state to have a small size, only the basics ["minarchist"];
"0ist" - wants the state to have size 0 [nothing at all] ["anarcho-capitalist"];

Among all the people the usual interpretation of "state" is 'a thing that rules [or "controls" or ...] over a territory with physical force and is supreme ["sovereign"] in that'. Normalists and smallists use this interpretation. 0ists deviate from this interpretation by adding that 'the state necessarily robs, it can not be moral, if it would be then we should not use the word "state" for it'.

My first request to you is to realize that this is a wording difference only. What if we resolve it by introducing for these 2 meanings 2 different words without political meanings? Let them be
"Apple" := state as usually interpreted; this one does not have to rob, it can be totally voluntary.
"Orange" := state, but necessarily robs its people.

Then:
All libertarians hate oranges, smallests too, as oranges infringe the non-aggression principle.
All libertarians love apples. Even 0ists. 0ists too want the surface of Earth to be partitioned and the partitions to be privately owned, such that the owners have right to rule over their sovereign partitions by physical force.

You see? All libertarians agree. They only seemingly disagree, if they use the word "state". And then only because they interpret "state" differently. Smallists and 0ists are not 2 different groups divided by difference in some basic libertarian principle. They are divided only in the interpretation of "state".

- This is most important.

All that 'you are not even a real liberatarian' from the 0ists toward the smallists is not due. All we libertarians are the same basically, as we all believe in the non-aggression principle. The rest is relatively not important, mostly technical differences.

You do not need to frighten away normies by saying that you would totally abolish the state. You would not, if we use "state" with its more common meaning.

Much less important, but still interesting: Which meaning of "state" is the more correct one? I invite you into a thought experiment. Imagine that we manage to partition all the surface of Earth into privately owned sovereign partitions, as a libertarian dream-scenario, all 8 billion people of Earth agreeing. Because it is practical: some of the partitions will be sold. The buyers will often be large corporations that form cities on their all-voluntarily acquired big territories. Such a big corporation would
* Have 'shareholders', who are similar to "citizen"s in the current states.
* Have a 'board of directors', elected by the shareholders. This is similar to the "parliament"s elected by the citizens in the current states.
* Have a 'CEO', similar to "president" or "prime minister" in current states.
* Army, police, ..., infrastructure, ... under the CEO, exactly as in current states.
As you see: this futuristic all-voluntary institution would be very similar to current democratic states. Would you use the word "state" for these institutions? Almost everybody would. Except only perhaps the 0ists. 0ists tell me that such an institution would not be a "state", as the state is something that robs. But why do you 0ists pre-suppose that states must rob? Not even the original meaning of "state" suggests that. The original meaning is from (state [as 'current situation'] of politics). Why would it be necessary that the political situation contains some robbing? I of course know that all the current states are and all the historical states were robbing - but this is only a practical observation so far, however strong it is, not enough to raise it to theoretical level. Example: till 1900 all computers were humans, always, everywhere - is this good enough cause to reject the word "computer" for machines?