Isn't legitimacy only a thing if there is already an established (legal) order? Or what do you take the word to mean? — ChatteringMonkey

take it as "logical or acceptable in principle".

take it as "logical or acceptable in principle". — Copernicus

Isn't this far too generic? As my favorite euphemism I've read on this site goes "there are far too many tails pinned on that donkey for it to have any sort of clear, singular (rather, usable and feasible) meaning."

One man's principle is generally defined on his upbringing and life experience or otherwise cultural and societal norms. The worst things you could imagine are "acceptable in principle" depending on who you're asking or for example if one is fighting a war.

If something is "logical or acceptable in principle", while it does enforce logic so something utopian or otherwise silly but otherwise exclusively "acceptable" in principle, such as, all men should live in peace and not commit crimes, still seems to be far too subjective and varying to offer any sort of grounds as far as universal justifications are concerned. Doesn't it?

Edit: I'll respond to your request to list any flaws I may or may not find in your OP shortly. I'm not intimately familiar with "minarchism" so wish to read up on it a bit more before providing a response.

I wonder if our fascination with questions that don't matter has ever been given serious study. But now I think of it, that may not matter either.

I wonder if our fascination with questions that don't matter has ever been given serious study. But now I think of it, that may not matter either. — Ciceronianus

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

Not all that glitters is gold.

A drop of wine in a vat of sewage is still sewage; a drop of sewage in a vat of wine is now a vat of sewage.

Ignorance is bliss, delusion is honey; Together, man thinks himself a god, knowing all there is to know, thus alleviating his existential fears of mortality and shame, yet all while remaining a simple child.

Perhaps. But one should ask oneself, sometimes at least, what is achieved. Even if we merely play games, then at least there's a winner and loser.

what is achieved. — Ciceronianus

We are blind in this world. We have senses, such as they are. But they are nothing suitable to understand the vastness of the universe. We poke and prod into the abyss, finding so-called "answers", at least things that satisfy our most primal senses, food, comfort, safety, entertainment, things a chipmunk also seeks and finds to satisfaction. But what of it?

Even if we merely play games, then at least there's a winner and loser. — Ciceronianus

The things people living an unexamined life consider the most important are actually the silliest and trivial of games, the least important of anything a man can do or ever hope to accomplish. In these falsehoods, so-called winners "lose" all opportunity of bettering one's self and learning from others who managed to make it as far as they have, while so-called losers "win" the unquenchable fire of a forced life of eternal betterment. Upon realizing such, we realize such childish mindsets produce no winners, but simple degrees of self-denial in all who embrace them.

Can you not see that? What madness is this?