I will say that although both camps demonstrate profound naivete regarding human nature, the Marxists are the more deluded ones. There is simply no way that altruism could ever work beyond an exceedingly tiny agrarian commune, which would have to be organized on some other cohesive psychologically motivating factor, such as family, clan, or religion.

Else, the moment all coercion were lifted, it would revert to a free market system where achievers would excel over the slothful. It could not be otherwise, and I hasten to note that the resulting anarchy would quickly be indistinguishable from that of the anarcho-capitalists. Thus, even if somehow mankind arrived at anarchy deliberately, it would still be a state of free market traders with no government, and belongs at the top of the chart. ◄Dave►

2a: absence or denial of any authority or established order.
b: absence of order : DISORDER.

I presume you are using 1c. So do the collectivists who advocate anarchy. As the state “withers away,” people live in a state of complete “freedom,” each one accepting his position and responsibilities voluntarily. Definitely Utopian, and definitely inconsistent with human nature as is Rothbard’s position.
And once more it is not a limiting case of government, but a lack of it, just as total darkness is not a limiting case of light but a total absence of it.

I see where we are having a semantics issue. You are discussing “anarchism” as a political philosophy with sub-camps within it, which could indeed be all over the map; while I and others are only using the word “anarchy” in its dictionary sense:

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

Thus, by our usage, to say “Anarchy is as much a creature of…” would be incorrect, for it is the state of complete absence of authority or any cohesive principle.

I well recall quite a debate I had on my original forum a couple of years ago with a pesky cannabis beclouded anarchist from Arkansas calling himself “Hogeye,” who was much enamored with Murray Rothbard. It was quite an education while it lasted. I soon had to ban him and deleted much of the debate all over the board in disgust, when he started advocating killing Narcs and cops. He was a piece of work! ◄Dave►

Anarchy is as much a creature of the collectivists as the individualists. I think some of the confusion regarding government is its relatioship to economics. A capitalist economy is not the same as a limited government. A benvolent dictator could still “allow” a laissez faire capitalist economy without relinquishing the option of converting to a statist economy should he feel it neccessary. His basic philosophy being that property is at the disposal of the states whim.

As Ronald Reagan suggested in his elegant attempt to awaken America to the folly of Left/Right thinking, in his remarkable “A Time for Choosing” speech, the important axis is the vertical arrow I have labeled “Government.” Less government trending toward Liberty is “Up,” and more government trending toward tyranny is “Down.” Beyond the upper tip, is the chaos of no government called anarchy. Below the lower tip would be the bondage of servitude, where government doesn’t even matter to the enslaved individual.

Does that help? ◄Dave►

Welcome back out of the boondocks into the connected world. You were missed.

Yes, I recall our discussion, and this new version of the chart is meant to clear up that issue too. If the vertical arrow is meant to span the spectrum from maximum government coercion at the bottom (totalitarianism) to minimum government at the top, the anarchy must be at the upper tip where there would be no government.

Here are three paragraphs from the rough draft of Part Two of my essay:

Most of the important action in my chart is centered around the intersection of the Left/Right line of the Incumbrepublocrats, and the Up/Down Government line. The truth is that most Americans political positions are fairly close to this point, and we have much more in common than the politicians wish us to believe. Most accept the agenda of the fringes as a necessary price they must pay to counter the effects of the opposite extremists at the polls. Many will cross the line to vote for a likable moderate from the other Party, or just to keep government divided and gridlocked. Single Party control of the levers of government has a way of eroding our individual Liberty, whichever side acquires it.

Notice that this intersection is well below the point of anarchy, which accounts for Reagan’s qualifier, “…individual Liberty, consistent with law and order…” Without a social contract and a minimal government mechanism to enforce it, individual Liberty – that is, the freedom to live one’s life as one wishes to live it – is less than optimum. If one is afraid to leave home for fear of encountering barbarians ruling the countryside with their thuggery, individual Liberty has little value.

The exact point of maximum individual Liberty near the Upper end of the Government line, is the subject of endless debate in libertarian circles, with some even advocating anarchy; but when put in the perspective of this chart, one can see how relatively unimportant these purists’ disagreements are in present circumstances. If we are already below the midpoint in our steady Progressive march toward tyranny, it would really behoove those of us anywhere near the Upper arrow, to unite in our effort to reverse this perilous trend, and drag as many of our countrymen as possible Up there with us.

Note the middle one. I am indebted to Orrin for making this distinction clear in his first two charts and the surrounding discussion in his Visual Philosophy post, which is worth the time to study. Technically, I (we) do not have Anarchy on the spectrum of government; but just beyond it. I agree with Orrin that the traditional L/R line does not accommodate its location for perspective, and must disagree with your assertion that it doesn’t even belong on the chart. If the bottom of the chart is total government, what else would one call the top?

Somehow I need to get across that I don’t consider anarchy the ideal we should be striving for at all, while at the same time acknowledging that the ideal state for individual Liberty is a lot closer to anarchy than either of the L/R statist Parties’ positions. Do the above three paragraphs accomplish that, or do I still need to work on it? ◄Dave►

I have been working (not very diligently) on an essay to explain my latest version of my political spectrum chart.

See Part One at: “Language of Politics” ◄Dave►