But I’m probably not getting through to you, in the same way that I can’t get through to someone who believes in “open borders“, because those who take such positions seem to have a psychology all their own. You either believe that man is social and thus has implicit rights AND responsibilities, as the overwhelming majority of good and decent people do, or you are a narcissistic renegade who fancies himself a Robinson Crusoe voluntarily suffering a candy shop of homo sapiens.

And the reason why free, rational men would voluntarily form a government is in recognition of the fact that humans tend to form gangs, the better to kill, pillage, and rape those unable to defend themselves. The sticky wicket is in how to finance it and stop it from becoming the aggressor itself. Without any other viable solution to the primary problem, we are stuck with finding ways to deal with the latter two. And it seems an uneasy truce is the best compromise we’ve been able to come up with so far. Far from perfect, but we’d have to perfect mankind before we could have peaceful anarchy.

A proponent of limited government, a minarchist, believes that a governmental institution (a monopoly on taxation and ultimate decision-making) would contend that a limited state is significantly less oppressive than a stateless alternative, which in their beliefs is an anarchic competition of violent gangs that ultimately ends in a manipulative and authoritarian regime anyway. Whatever position is correct is another, more complex, matter.

Although I don’t know too much about Rothbard, I get the sense that in his twilight years, when he reestablished himself as part of the American hard Right, he was neither explicitly ancap or minarch, but someone who was agnostic to that often asinine and banal debate and was concerned with practical freedom. But since I am largely uneducated and unread on Rothbard, I may be incorrect.

Laissez faire is also of greater practical utility in nearly every circumstance than any alternatives. For anyone that disagrees, simply research the value-free science of Austro-Misesean Economics and you will understand why I am right. Our politicians sure as heck need to try this.

Although, to be perfectly honest, I would not classify myself as a classical liberal, I nevertheless have tremendous admiration for your work and agree with many of your views.

There is one thing with regard to libertarian philosophy that has always puzzled me;
If any kind of taxation is nothing but legalized theft, and any governmental monopoly is simply legalized banditry & racketeering, which is undoubtedly true, how can intellectuals of a libertarian persuasion justify the existence of a so called “limited government”?

After all, by doing so these individuals are saying that SOME AMOUNT of THIEVERY, EXTORTION and COERCION is still necessary for the creation of a free society.
In this regard I find Murray Rothbard much more intellectually honest and decent than Ayn Rand. This is because Mr. Rothbard rejects the existence of ANY STATE, regardless of size or organization, due to its criminal nature. He reaches the logical conclusion that the only real liberal society, in which individual rights are protected, is a stateless one. I guess my question is as follows; how can (so many) libertarians/classical liberals be genuine advocates of freedom, when they still support an organization that despite being small still violates the very same natural rights they claim to uphold?