Some Austrian Economists claim to be anti-state; however, they support a minimal role of government including police, courts, and national defense. How is this anti-state, if they support the state in a limited role? I'd very much like someone to clear up this confusion I've had. Thanks.
There are people, who are against government intervention - because of ethical reasons, because of practical reasons or because of both - but who think that some services cannot be provided by market to the extent they need to. That's why they think you need government to provide these particular services. Of course they would be in favor of eliminating the state altogether, but since they don't believe it to be possible or they believe it would lead into bad chaos, they support minimal state i.e. minarchy or something similar.
I really do not understand that position, firstly, and then their comrades' celebration of them as anti-state in coordination. There is ample history and reasoning to back of the position that Minarchism leads to statism; I also do not understand that with as brilliant as some of these men were, they could not come to that conclusion. I supose we should celebrate them for their work against the state, and not take their defense of certain state functions seriously. David Friedman in The Machinery of Freedom presented arguments for police, courts, and national defense on the free market that functioned better than under statism. Hmm...
Minarchism leads to tyranny*
Austrian School is as school of economics. An austrian economist doesn't need to be libertarian and a libertarian doesn't need to think the austrian methodology is the right one, but it happens that libertarianism and the conclusions of the austrian school get along really well.
Some libertarians are minarchists, others are full anarchists. Some are radical survivalists, others are passionate about technology. The important thing to me is that we defend much more freedom than the dominant ideology allows.