Avoiding points of conflict between anarchists and minarchists means either studied silence or mumbling prevarication on issues that ought to be absolutely central for any anarchist worth her salt — among other things, the right of (state, local, neighborhood, individual) secession, the moral illegitimacy and practical futility of appeals to the Constitution, the arrogance and abusiveness of monopoly police forces, the illegitimacy of any and all forms of taxation [...]Johnson is almost right, except we minarchists will only shoot him if he commits aggression or takes up arms against a sea of minarchist troubles and by opposing tries to end them.
[W]hat will happen on this ride is that once the train pulls into the minarchy station, the minarchists will get off the train — and then they will try to block the tracks and threaten to open fire on the rest of us if we try to take the train any further towards the end of the line. That’s what being a minarchist means: government always comes out of the barrel of a gun, and that’s true whether the government is unlimited or limited, maximal or minimal. If you try to move, in any concrete way, from minarchy towards anarchy, those minarchists you spent so many years working with are still going to try to shoot you. Personally, I have no desire to join any movement whose members will turn around and shoot me in the end.
Starchild adds a comment there counseling libertarian anarchists not to hyphenate themselves and thus implicitly concede that straight anarchism isn't necessarily libertarian. (Starchild claims not to be an anarchist himself, but the only force initiation I've ever gotten him to endorse has to do with forcing alleged aggressors to stand trial.)