iakobos,
You and I are destined to disagree on the topic of abortion. Since you mentioned him, please look up Walter Block's position. He is pro-choice (nobody is "pro-abortion" per-se), but his reasoning bypasses the question of whether the unborn baby is human or not.
His logic is that even if we granted that the unborn baby was fully human, that baby would still have no right to live as a parasite within the mother's womb. The mother, his argument goes, is the full, unconditional owner of her own body (at least a-priori). As such, she has a right to "evict" the unwanted baby.
To be clear, if the baby is viable, it is her responsibility to ensure that early birth rather than terminating abortion is undertaken. Anything else
would be murder.
Having said that, a combination of prior-commitment by the mother and social pressure may well diminish the frequency of abortions. This may be as good as it can get, given that even strict outlawing is unlikely to completely prevent some abortions from taking place.
Several people have done work on linking libertarianism with the Bible. Most comprehensive is probably Gary North's
An Economic Commentary on the Bible: Genesis to Revelation, a massive volume which I have not read.
My favourite biblical quote, in this context, is, of course, 1 Samuel 8:10-22
1 Samuel 8:10-22 wrote:10 So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking for a king from him. 11 He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. 12 And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. 15 He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. 16 He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men[a] and your donkeys, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. 18 And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”
Finally, on the issue of minarchy vs. anarchy. Being a libertarian, you are probably already sceptical of government's ability to efficiently and effectively deliver services. If government isn't great at providing health-care and education, why assume it will be the best solution for police protection or even national defence?
I know of two main objections to full anarchy from otherwise libertarian thinkers.
First, most commonly coming from Objectivists, there is concern over whether the law emerging from an undirected market would be the "objectively-correct" law.
More commonly, however, are concerns over whether an anarchy is realisable as a stable, peaceful and flourishing modern society.
I'll be happy to focus my arguments if you tell me where your primary concerns with anarchy lie.
Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.