i am being serious, i'm just learning

Are you learning? What have you learned here? As I said, it seems like you're mostly just repeating yourself for weeks straight.

i do NOT endorse war on venezula, as i prefer peaceful ways to settle this - if my comment seemed like me supporting such, i apologize.

With respect to Venezuela, the main thing to emphasize is that there should be no war and the people agitating against Venezuela are tools of imperialism. We can talk about the direction Venezuela should be taking when it is on ground where it is even capable of changing course rather than clinging to survival as others try to dictate its course.

minarchism is the idea of minimizing or devolving the state for purposes such as police, millitary and courts - from a left-libertarian perspective, i think the state would be devolved to simply administration and welfare services.

While some of this makes me think that you'd like to read Engels (I already linked you Socialism: Utopian and Scientific in another comment), you are now just talking around the problem, because law enforcement is still coercion.

But as I also told you in another comment that you never replied to, as did others, this is an attempt to depoliticize the state, and it's fundamentally misguided. There cannot be a depoliticized state. You cannot just avoid questions of what should be done and hope that things work out, and all this stuff about "shrinking" the government fundamentally isn't serious political theory. Here is why:

Either the government is enforcing property relations, or the property claimants are enforcing property relations. The tendency of the latter is inevitably to trend toward warlordism, which you might note is functionally also a form of governance.

The Republicans who talk about "small government" (because let's face it, those are most of the people who say that) either don't know the meaning of their assertions, or they are lying to you. The reason is that, insofar as you can trace discussions of the "size" of government to anything in reality at all, it usually relates to regulations. Regulations do not represent a spectrum from freedom to oppression, they represent the extent to which decisions are made by the government versus by the rich. The rich cannot be reformed to make pro-social decisions consistently, there are clear structural reasons that it is impossible because doing so will cause them to lose out to more ruthless capitalists. Only a democratic government, a so-called "tyranny of the majority," has the capability of consistently making choices that benefit most people.

"minarchism is the idea of minimizing or devolving the state for purposes such as police, millitary and courts"

Why would you do that, you would immediately be threatened, if not outright invaded, by the Capitalists. You're thinking in a vacuum only, without considering the material reality that would surround any nation with this 'ideology'.

"i think the state would be devolved to simply administration and welfare services."

That's not what the 'State' means, that's just governance in general. Not to mention that you would be unable to coerce any of the Bourgeoisie to the will of the Proletariat in any form. You wouldn't be able to seize the means of production at all; nationalization without State force is impossible, among other numerous issues. Without the oppression of the Bourgeoisie, through the use of the State, the Proletariat are at risk of oppression again by the Bourgeoisie.

We know what you're talking about, yet you keep reiterating as if we do not. My comrades here are trying to tell you that this is an ideological dead end, and instead redirect you to actually read Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, etc. Not Wikipedia articles. Atleast read the Communist Manifesto, it is not that long and is possible to read- even with ADHD, which I suffer from heavily. It will atleast give you the bare basics.