You’re asbolutely right that the intellectual divide between Rothbard and Friedman is actually very large.
As much as I love Rothbard’s fiery anti-statism, I have to say that I think Friedman’s approach is superior both on the issue of fact (it’s a better description of the world-as-it-is) and in point of norms (it’s a view that is more aligned with how human ethics and law actually develop in society).
I think where Rothbard and Friedman start to diverge is actually on the issue of the importance of the opinion-molding class. While I agree with Rothbard’s emphasis on the role of the opinion-molding class in maintaining the State, I think that its role in the shape and character of society itself is distinctly smaller. In other words, while the State is a creature whose existence is dependent on the propaganda of the opinion-molding class, this is not the case for the attributes of anarchic society.
Absent the tax-fed intellectuals spewing propaganda through the State-controlled media, people will not go rushing out to find substitutes for them. The influence of the opinion-molding class is amplified by the State and diminished in its absence. Cultural ideas and social norms develop “from the bottom-up” in this case. The character of society is then largely determined by a much more democratic kind of “memetic competition”.
To my knowledge, Friedman is silent about the importance of the opinion-molding class is maintaining the state order (he has this in common with other State-university employed intellectuals with otherwise anti-establishment ideas such as Daniel Dennett or Richard Dawkins). This doesn’t mean he disagrees with Rothbard, however. Rather, Friedman’s focus is on the character of society as it emerges from the bottom-up processes already well-understood by economics.
Drawn out in cartoon form:
Rothbard: natural laws → discovered by natural law theorists → promulgated by opinion-molding class → (universal?) natural law society
Hoppe: market competition between “aggression insurers” → diminishing profitability of operating a gang or State → territorial private property/natural law society
Friedman: market competition between law/security firms → better law, diminishing profitability of operating an oppressive State → freer States/private property societies
Me: market competition between law firms (arbitrators) → better law and morality → diminishing profitability of operating an oppressive State → freer States/private property societies → natural law society?
I would hesitate to call Friedman a legal polycentricist as I’m not aware of any place where he comes down hard on the question of territoriality. Hoppe is strongly territorial and I get the impression that he sees private-law societies as well-defended islands of prosperity, moral decency and legal sanity amidst an ocean of socieities where private property rights are less strong and people are, concomitantly, poorer, more immoral and more lawless.
I can’t think of any place where Rothbard talks about territoriality but I think he foresees the natural law order as emerging at the highest levels (i.e. international commerce, merchant law, treaty law, etc.) and then working its way down to smaller, more local legal systems. In this way, there really is no question of territoriality as the natural law order is inherently global and simply works its way down to local law systems.
I think that territoriality is crucial and is built into human nature at such a fundamental level that - even if it’s a poor organizing principle by some artificial measures we might devise - it is an inevitable principle of human society. We can imagine competing law systems coexisting territorially (and Friedman actually gives some examples somewhere in his online material) but I think this will remain an exception more than a rule.
I think all three of Rothbard, Hoppe and Friedman contribute important insights into the eventual nature of a freer social order than the present one. Territoriality is important. (Hoppe) Large cap individuals and organizations tend to have better legal arrangements based on saner principles than smaller cap individuals and organizations. (Rothbard) But law is never absolutely territorial. (Friedman)
My one gripe with Friedman is that I think he gives up too easily on the issue of moral philosophy and I think a great deal of valuable work is waiting to just be done by someone in this area.
Clayton -