If we imagine that any functions of government institutions can be outsourced to private entities, how would problems such as a crowd of people dissatisfied with the lack of state-guaranteed pensions and disability payments be resolved in an ancap society?

Alexey

The question seems inconsistent to me. If the functions of God are outsourced to private entities, then how do we solve the problem of a crowd of people dissatisfied with the lack of a God-guaranteed reward for spiritual merits? If the crowd makes claims against God, they are addressing the wrong party, because His functions have been given to private entities, and it is they who are accountable. If the claims are made against the private entities, then one must look at the content of the contracts concluded with them, and depending on this, the legal proceedings will yield one result or another. It is not necessary to gather as an offline crowd to file a lawsuit; class-action lawsuits are perfectly coordinated on the internet.

As for the first part of the question—what is bad about minarchism—it is far more useful to make it clear why it is good. It is good because it quickly and reliably provides a serious improvement in the quality of life for many people. As the great minarchist Kakha Bendukidze stated, reforms are when everyone quickly becomes better off. Minarchism becomes bad when it suggests stopping at what has been achieved. From that moment, the rollback toward a large state begins. At this point, minarchists need to be pushed aside and the dismantling of the state should continue, not giving them time to recover and ignoring demands to leave a small piece to play with.

In conclusion, I would like to suggest for your review an interesting interview between the minarchist Yaroslav Romanchuk and the ancap Boris Yurovsky regarding the practical measures proposed by the Austrian School of Economics for post-Soviet states. A particularly juicy moment was when Romanchuk stated that ancap and communism are utopias incompatible with human nature: you should have seen the range of emotions on Boris Savich’s expressionless face)))

Otherwise, the interview is quite constructive; Romanchuk proposes a mix of the successfully implemented Georgian reforms of the aforementioned Kakha Bendukidze, the reform program of the Ukrainian minarchist Gennady Balashov—and adds to them my favorite idea about the decentralization of law by removing the licensing of judges and the monopoly on jurisdiction, in order to remove restrictions on the widespread distribution of the only fair court—the arbitration court. In general, I liked it very much. Actually, I love minarchists.