Was Rothbard an anarchist?

I've read some articles by Cohen. Even if one doesn't agree with him, he is a good writer and a clear thinker. Regarding the book Danny mentioned, one should read it but also look up Eric Mack's detailed response to it, as well as (and I shudder to say this) Palmer's.

Brainpolice:

Well I don't consider myself "right-wing" at all. If anything, I'm a cultural "leftist" and I associate "the right" with economic fascism or corporatism rather then property rights and free markets. And so long as such communists are actually voluntarists, I have no objection in principle, only one of personal preferance.

Ditto.

Nathyn:

Yes, you appear to support the ridiculous "Reagan" spectrum of "pro-freedom" and "anti-freedom."

No.

Nathyn:

So, is the ideology of Anarcho-Capitalism a left-wing or a right-wing phenomenon?

No, anarcho-capitalism is a purely left-wing philosophy.

Nathyn:

Now, even if we go by the Libertarian model of two-axis:

*Social freedom

*Economic freedom

Nathyn, do you really want me to spell out for you my whole conception of the political spectrum?  Because on my 2D spectrum, you will not see one axis dedicated to social freedom and another to economic freedom.

Hmm.

I'm just going to o ahead and post here the note I wrote to myself on Facebook on December 7th.

(Note: if you're not Nathyn, you need not bother read the rest of this post.)

Nathyn:

Now, if we judge ideologies based upon their intentions as you propose,

Where do I propose this?

Nathyn:

You simply cannot judge ideologies based upon models which are skewed by your own ideology

Which is why I decided to come up with a different spectrum, one which does not presume individualism to be better than collectivism or vice versa, one which acknowledges the possible existence of nihilists and of voluntaryist communists, and one which does not presume that those found in the corners hold ideologies which consist of combinations of ideologies held by those in adjacent corners--in short, one that everybody can live with.  Is it perfect?  No spectrum can be, but it hits upon everything which would be essential for me.

Nathyn:

Brainpolice, culture is very, very dynamic. Consider the role that race and religion plays in politics. Humanity is not divided into two collectives: One against freedom, the other for it

Nathyn, freedom is an ends.  It has no place on the political spectrum, which ought to be about means.  Hence why I designed a spectrum which fully focuses on means, including non-aggressive individualism, non-aggressive collectivism, aggressive individualism, aggressive collectivism, and literally everything in-between.  Therefore, we don't have to fight about "freedom," just the means of getting there.

Nathyn:

You reject the very possibility of considering the notion that any Socialist has any regard for any kind of freedom.

I reject that statism or aggression will, as means, yeild the ends of freedom.