Brian Patrick Mitchell in "Eight Ways to Run a Country" argued that there was a difference between kratos (political power) and arche (other forms of power like tradition, social pressure, rank etc.). Opposing political power doesn't necessarily mean that you oppose traditional gender norms, sexism, racism, etc. Hence there are a number of social conservatives who affiliate with libertarianism, like Ron Paul. David Friedman dwells on a similar point in arguing that anarchism or minarchism (no or limited political power) doesn't translate into a more libertarian society if the private providers of law and order are social conservatives.

One of the pieces, by David Osterfeld, points out that there is no guarantee that anarcho-capitalist institutions would generate libertarian law, especially in a society where most people held some non-libertarian beliefs in common. In a footnote he correctly reports me as recognizing the distinction between anarchism and libertarianism, while incorrectly asserting that I extricate myself from the dilemma by refusing to classify myself as a libertarian.

This is a fair point, and argues against using the government to shape social policies. If most people are socially conservative, institutions will be socially conservative regardless of government policy. The same is true of social liberalism. Friedman also notes difficulties in keeping government limited.

Once you set up your limited government, you too have no way to guarantee that what it produces will be libertarian law. If law is made by direct democracy, the majority might vote to ban heroin or prostitution. If it is made by representative democracy, the representatives might so vote--especially if the position is supported by most voters. If the law is to be kept free by the courts, the courts might come down on the wrong side.

This is the fundamental question of how to sustain a minarchist state that leads to a lot of people to anarchism, including Rothbard.

I realized in a flash that their logic was impeccable, that laissez faire was logically untenable, and that either I had to become a liberal, or move onward into anarchism. I became an anarchist. Furthermore, I saw the total incompatibility of the insights of Oppenheimer and Nock on the nature of the State as conquest, with the vague "social contract" basis that I had been postulating for a laissez-faire government. I saw that the only genuine contract had to be an individual’s specifically disposing of or using his own property.

How can a government stay limited unless the people believe in limited government?