It’s a new anti-spam filter they’re using here I think, and it’s been giving funny results. Anyway, it’s apparently still in the process of being “fine-tuned”.
Exactly. anarchy is an- [without} -archy [rulers]. Minarchy doesn’t mean limited anarchy, it means minimal rulers or minimal government.
I still favor anarchism to minarchism, however (the ideology, not the word).
a mutual understanding of rules (dare I say social contract) are inherent to any society (population greater than one) - therefore pure anarchy never exists, rather there’s some compromise of personal autonomy to a higher state of cooperation - that is, for the sake of living together in peace. The benefits of this arrangement must outweigh its costs for each individual, else he/she wouldn’t bother staying (such are division of labor, security from without, for ex.). And who guarantees that those rules are adhered to? Well, in a two-person dwelling it would likely be either the stronger or smarter of them (depending of the level of civilization/enlightenment they’ve achieved - and one could well-argue the states of the world haven’t gone beyond the ‘stronger’ category yet). And so in any social existence there’s an enforcer of its implicit/explicit rules, laws, etc. So that a government of some sort always exists, and therefore anarchy does not - as always it shall be. The best a ‘free-market’ can hope for is minimal interference, which must be maintained and constantly struggled for by the participants - via the legal system that exists in each case.
Your premise is incorrect.
The term “anarchy” comes from the Greek an- “without” and arkhos “chief, ruler”
Hence “minarchy” refers to minimal government, not minimal anarchy.
EDIT: Nevermind, I see you already caught this and corrected yourself in the second page of the thread.
Yeh 
Btw, where did you dig up this thread? it’s over half a year old lol.