What it really sounds like is that your definition of “left-libertarian” is largely different from any of these others. You seem to think that the “left” part simply refers to personal lifestyle choices. I’ve never heard that suggestion before, but what’s more, it makes absolutely no sense. “Left” in this kind of context (i.e. political) generally refers to the direction of the political philosophy lean…that is, toward or away from statism. Therefore, “left” could be read as “socialist” (regardless of the degree). (Indeed, as I mentioned before, “libertarian socialist” is another term at least some of these people use to describe themselves.)
It is for this reason Rothbard regards them as “big government”…and the term itself as “oxymoronic” (along with “big government conservative”). How you can claim that Rothbard is even describing minarchists (let alone libertarians in general) when he specifically titles the piece big government libertarians, and proceeds to detail the socialist tenets of these people, is beyond me.
What Rothbard seems to be describing are a certain breed of socialist who happen to support some aspects of the free market, but have a very warped understanding of “rights” and distort the term beyond the recognition of any actual proponent of liberty. Indeed, as Rothbard says in the second paragraph:
The weird thing about Big Government Libertarianism, of course, is that it clearly violates the very nature and point of libertarianism: devotion to the ideal of either no government at all or government that is minuscule and strictly confined to defense of person and property: to what the ex-libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick called “ultra-minimal” government, or what the great paleolibertarian writer H.L. Mencken called “government that barely escapes being no government at all.”
Self-proclaimed “left libertarians” like Roderick Long may allege that they fit in the “libertarian” category Rothbard describes, and indeed may even advocate the abolishment of the state and the privatization of legislative, adjudicative, and protective functions usually monopolized by government…a doctrine Long calls “market anarchism”. But I see little difference between this and anarcho-communism if one’s understanding of “property” is such that people have “rights” beyond the boundaries of the property of others. (i.e. private property doesn’t really exist…or at least, so-called “civil rights” trump property rights.) (Which, interestingly enough sounds a lot like what one Webster Tarpley claims is the case.)
You don’t seem to acknowledge any of this. You seem to only be concerned with what boils down to personal taste…as in, “‘left-libertarianism’ means you’re libertarian who happens to be a hedonist and atheist and probably promiscuous or a drug user or all of the above, whereas ‘right-libertarianism’ means you’re libertarian who happens to be god-fearing, Constitution-pounding, Bible beating and ‘alternative-lifestyle’-hating.”
This makes absolutely no sense. It conflates political leanings with personal lifestyle choices. As in, if I’m a Christian, that means I’m “right-[something]”. If I’m gay, that means I’m “left-[something]”. That has to be the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
Once again, in this kind of context “left” and “right” are understood to designate political leanings…as in toward or away from statism. This has nothing to do with personal religious beliefs or sexual preferences or feelings about “tradition” or anything of the sort. And to claim that someone is “left” or “right” depending on how they feel about sex out of wedlock is even more asinine than the oxymoron of being an anti-statist who “leans toward statism”.
So here’s my understanding so far:
“Left-libertarian” is someone who claims to be in favor of no or minimal government, but believes in alleged “civil rights” which override the genuine rights of private property, and tends to use a co-mingling of “public” and “private” property to help enforce this view.
“Anarcho-communist” is someone who claims to be in favor of no government, but supports the abolishment of private ownership of “the means of production and distribution” and advocates direct democracy as a means to manage such things (while keeping private ownership of other goods inact…“your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to ‘the people’.”)
“Anarcho-syndicalist” is an Anarcho-communist who pays special favor to the “plight” of labor, and comes at anarchism from that angle, and may suggest revolutionary tactics that other anarcho-communists may not.