On the contrary, libertarianism regards the law as force organized for the common defense and nothing more. [1] The protection of our negative rights is the one essential function of government in the libertarian view.

I've always been curious: how does anarchism reconcile your right not to be harmed with the supposed right of other individuals to do anything they please, including harm you? Do we even have a right not to be harmed? If we do, how is justice served -- can we serve it ourselves, or should it be delegated somehow? Or are these questions "out of scope" and justice is handled on a case-by-case basis that's not prescribed by anarchism?

[1] http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

> Do we even have a right not to be harmed? If we do, how is justice served -- can we serve it ourselves, or delegate it to others if we wish?

...And then the young anarchists assemble a small group for mutual protection and justice. And then these small groups begin to share resources and find the need for policies and infrastructure...

...And then they rebel against their new society because it imposes policies on their "freedom"...

Libertarians tend to accept that coercive force is sometimes necessary, particularly when it comes to property ownership and enforcing contracts, although they also sometimes disagree that a state and monopoly on force are necessary for the coercion.

To this end, Libertarianism sometimes seems to me like a weak or pragmatic form of anarchy.

Libertarians reject the initiation of coercion or violence but accept forceful response — at the gentlest intensity necessary — to repel such invasions. For example, a libertarian would be fine with a homeowner shooting dead an armed robber who had broken in.

Ludwig von Mises was a minarchist, i.e., he advocated for the smallest state necessary. His student Murray Rothbard referred to himself as an anarchist or an anarchocapitalist.

Of course, Rothbardians and Marxists mean entirely different concepts when they use the term anarchist.