Mr. Jonno, I suggest reading Walden Two by B.F. Skinner, where it mentions life in a totalitarian utopia where the inclination to behave is controlled, as opposed to human behavior.  It's an idea I'd like to see tried.

I'm glad someone mentioned that Rothbard and many other Libertarians assume that everyone agrees on what "liberty" means and that it's obviously and undeniably good to have whatever it is. "Freedom" & "Liberty" are thrown around with the promise of utopia (sound familiar?) but they have a wide spectrum of interpretation. To some right-libertarians, they mean "Zero Aggression". Basically, as you said, "leave me alone". It fails to see that other people might have values other than simply "liberty". Libertarians often tell me that liberty will lead all other values you might have into being. I'm not so sure.

Here are a few works to enjoy from the other side of this subject, if anyone is interested. I should also point out before I dive in that I'm aware, as should you be, that libertarianism as often used is synonymous with "right"-libertarianism (e.g. the LP, typically pro-captialism) but there are also so-called left-libertarians (typically anti-capitalism), including anarcho-communists, mutualist, agorist etc.:

Anarchist FAQ - What other types of anarchists (the communist kind mostly) have to say about "anarcho"-capitalism (i.e. Rothbard's clan) The rest of the FAQ is great reading also. Pretty impressive work, whether you buy it or not.

Snow Crash - Neal Stephenson's fictional portrayal of libertarian "anarcho"-capitalism taken to the max. Is this how it might look?

Why Libertarianism is Mistaken - A published academic examination of the incoherence of founding libertarianism on negative rights and liberty.

Contempory Political Philosophy - Great book for comparing the many ways people arrive at concepts of a good society. Covers libertarianism.

Another Critique of Libertarianism

What's Wrong with Libertarianism - philosophical take. As "rational responders" we should remember to treat political philosophy with the same eye that we do gods. Let's not slip up in the name of zealous cries for "freedom". It's a touch too much like religious zeal. Light on the logic, heavy on the promises.

Self-Ownership, Freedom & Equality - A non-libertarian take on what freedom and liberty are.

Anarchy in Somalia? - So is this the proof or is this not really a fair view of anarchy as cite #6 claims?

As to Rockwell, I found the article to lack any compelling reason to think the state is always the enemy. He speaks of it as if it is self-evident. He offers no evidence as to why the policies that make the state undesirable actually make life worse. To paraphrase Jeffery Friedman, just demonstrating failures of the state doesn't result logically in the conclusion that non-state society would be better. It could just as easily be a different state that hasn't been tried. I see him campaigning for Ron Paul. So should I assume that Rockwell expects that Paul's first order of business as President would be to dissolve the state? Something tells me not.

Indeed. But the response I usually get from anarchists is always something along the lines of "well, yeah, but there are other factors in play with something like Somalia that are screwing with the ideal model of what anarchy should be. In real anarchy..."

I'm always at a loss as to how anarchists plan to keep everyone focused on this ideal. It seems to me that anarchy can only work with groups of people all ideologically motivated to keep the spirit of the experiment alive.

Le Guin's The Dispossessed, which I just finished reading, paints a picture of an anarcho-communist society. It was obvious to me that this society only worked because everyone in it had an almost religious zeal for the philosophy (espoused by an initial leader of the movement). They were drilled with stories of how awful the old world was. I imagine that's just about spot on if a society like that would actually come about and survive peacefully. It would need complete isolation from other systems, a homogeneous psychology/ideology and a few generations to filter out anyone who remembered how to live life any other way.

I'm giving anarchy a chance to convince me, primarily by immersing myself in the Anarchist FAQ. If the convincing argument isn't there, it isn't anywhere, I figure. I have my doubts but there is a lot of theory and information to cover. Anarchists are of course not opposed to organization just hierarcical organization and oligopoly.

Rothbard admits that he believes we should have universally agreed to laws and an enforcement mechanism for them but then fails to explain why this is not the "State". He feels that by spliting the enforcement up into smaller bits it makes all the difference yet the laws remain universal. To me, all that accomplishes is perhaps more turnover in the judges and juries (perhaps a good thing) but does change the nature of the beast. At that point, are we just playing word games?

Don't forget the Bogeyman.

Seriously though I wanted to mention something that I think is important about the idea of "Liberty" and assuming that it comes from staunch individualism, which is essentially what most libertarians stand by, whether it's the Rand or Stirner variety.

I think the idea of individualism can suffer from the same lack of consideration for "externalities" that is often found in free-market apologetics, where the benefits are measured but some costs are ignored. For example, it is assumed that everyone out for their own good (while not violating the liberty of others, naturally) will lead to the best possible world. However, I keep thinking of the guy standing in the crowd. To better his view he will stand on his toes. But if everyone has this idea, no one is better off because now everyone is standing on their toes.

To put it another way, if we are all working hard as individuals it may bring us statisfaction but if would be a mistake of ignored costs to forget that we might actually be forced to work harder than we would like just to keep up with others. In other words, what we assume would be liberty might actually turn into the exact opposite. We could become slaves to our own need to stay afloat in a rising tide of competition. Rather than doing what we want, we might be forced to do what we have to do, well beyond the point of contentment and efficient utility. There doesn't need to be a Powers That Be to take your liberty away.