@dbhalling -- Redefining terms to suit your own purposes is just cheap semantic trickery. To wit:

1. // A government based on Natural Rights is not coercive // In and for the purpose of this essay the term "government" is specifically defined as the coercive form of governance - as opposed to voluntary governance (i.e. based on natural rights) which is defined as the non-coercive variety.

2. // Anarchy is not freedom // Where is the claim that it is? Certainly not in In this essay which takes pains to define "anarchy" clearly as "no ruler". The very word "freedom" does not even appear once in any context in this piece.

To top it all off, do you then delineate a meaningful position or rational argument of your own? Not a chance. Instead you proceed to describe your particular interpretation (i.e. an opinion and therefore conveniently beyond debate) of what you describe as the beliefs (what they "buy into") which an amorphous non entity you call "anarchists in the Rothbard style". What any of this has to do with the core arguments of the essay is anybody's guess.

Thanks

Ya nailed it....again.

While this article correctly identifies that fascism and communism are not on the same side of the political spectrum, it makes a number of errors. For instances the statement:

Since government is by definition a coercive institution, the only difference between “total” and “limited” governments is the degree of coercion applied and therefore insignificant from an ethical perspective. To speak of limited government is no less irrational that to speak of limited slavery.

A government based on Natural Rights is not coercive, it only uses retaliatory force and only against those who initiate it. Anarchy is not freedom, it is the circumstance in which each person has to defend their rights (person and property) constantly against any wandering mob.

Anarchists in the Rothbard style recognize the problems of government, but buy into the same concept as both communists and theists that man is inherently evil. However, their conclusion is not that man needs to be constrained by government, but that no man can be entrusted in the position of government. The practical result is that they end up verifying the position of those who believe man must be ruled for his own good.