Of course the response to this from free market advocates is likely to be a rehash of what occurred in the Soviet Union, but such an argument misses the point, which is that good government is an essential and irreplaceable adjunct to an efficient and productive market economy, and that an efficient and productive market economy is an essential and irreplaceable adjunct to good government. Moreover, such a government should have some influence in the marketplace beyond simply the enforcement of legal limits, and should be involved directly in producing goods and services when necessary and when efficiency is superior to, and total cost of production is lower than, that provided by the market economy.
Minarchists are one step away from Anarchism because they see it as an evil that must be destroyed or a tumour that must be excised. Minarchists who would argue that my point of view has a rosy and naive view of government have, in turn, a rosy and naive view of what society would be like without government.
By all means let us complain about and seek reforms to both government and market, but let's not pretend that the only two options available are Minarchism or Communism. The argument has always been about how much power one sector should have over another. Arguing that one sector should be destroyed or reduced to slavery is the hallmark of radicalism.