The Failure of Minarchy

Ayn Rand claimed that there should be a "separation of economy and state". Which sounds quite reasonable (for the capitalist of course) but on further examination it is clear that there is no such thing as a separation of economy and state. Because a true separation of the two would be anarchy.

Rand claimed the 3 roles of government were:
1. Army
2. Police
3. Justice System

But Rand has simply chosen 3 arbitrary things they she does not believe could be supplied by the government. Some people believe that health care is impossible to be supplied effectively by a free market and should be provided by the state. Can those that claim universal health care also claim that they support the "separation of economy and state"?

The entire problem in the first place is that people always think that (X) can't be provided by the free market so (X) must be provided by the state (which of course is not an actual answer to the problem at hand, but the lack of one). The minarchists use this claim against every government program until it gets to army, police, and/or a justice system. How is it that you can claim that the government cannot effectively provide health care, but they can manage an army effectively? How is it that you hold up the principle that central planning can never compensate for the complex interests of individuals yet you believe in a centrally planned police force?
Minarchy is in direct contradiction with its own principles. The purpose of chemo-therapy is not to make the cancer problem as small as possible but to get rid of it. And like a cancer that is not treated completely, the problem of minimal government is that it will always come back. The founding fathers made the smallest government the world had ever seen and look at it now.What was once the smallest government is now the most large and deadly that the world has ever seen.

Look at all the smallest governments and how they always the most quickly became the larges. Consider Rome, Britain, Persia, and America.

Governments always grow
Big governments murder and oppress people
Small governments became larger more quickly.

I think this all comes down to the fact that because governments have been around so long we have a hard time imagining a stateless society. In the same way that if the government had always provided people with shoes then the idea of the state that no longer provided shoes would startle people. Questions may be asked along the lines of "But who will make sure the the shoes will be good quality?" or "Who will make sure that the shoes will be safe?"

This is of course similar to those people who claim that evolution cannot be true because they personally cannot consieve of how a "half wing" would be useful to a species. However your own personal inability to think of such a purpose is no proof against the theory of evolution (and when I say theory I mean it in the same way as the "theory of gravity").

I am not going to attempt to explain how a stateless society might work, there are others who have articulated this much better then I ever could many times, and I would love to help provide literature for anyone interested. My main goal was to go over basic principles of in hopes of sparking your curiosity but also and mostly to pose a challenge: I would like to challenge you that if you have any skepticism towards the states ability to manage and run things effectively then I urge you to apply that same skepticism to the aspects of government that you support. Perhaps I have missed something huge and some the state is not an inherent contradiction, but the idea is worth exploring.