Well apparently this is a series...   specifically dealing the with the minarchist/anarchist issue.  The next post is rather interesting...

http://analyticaleconomist.blogspot.com/2013/06/anarcho-capitalistic-dogmatism-part-ii.html

"A general principle to follow when critiquing somebody elses views is you have to properly represent what they have said.  If this principle is not followed you will miss your mark and fail at your endeavor.  There are various degrees to how far a person can miss the mark but if you aim small you will miss small.  At one end of the spectrum you have the complete straw-man where the critical analysis does not even give the slightest impression the critic desired to accurately portray the view under scrutiny.  Usually when this happens it has the distinctive whiff of a smear job and should not be taken seriously.  On the other end of the spectrum you have the case where the critic takes the view under analysis quite seriously and strives to accurately portray it in order to allow a proper hearing.  The judiciously constructed critiques are much more difficult to write because it requires meticulous attention to detail and careful intellectual craftsmanship."

...  I'm not going to get into the comment about Marx, the idea that his work is philosophically enlightening is silly.

But I'm more curious about what anarchists have to say about this matter in that I am on the fence on some of the minarchist/anarchist issues.