I've been doing a lot of studying on anarchism and my research on the psuedo-anarchistic school of anarcho-capitalism led me to, surprisingly, a left-libertarian philosophy that derives itself from that.
To those who aren't familiar with it, let me see if I can teach you enough about it to give good answers.
Here's a good place to start:
Basically the philosophy goes almost totally to left than Rothbard's the radically psuedo-statist philosophy which it derives from. It still supports the idea of a market economy but is against capitalism and its coercive nature... but not entirely.
Advocates hold that by engaging in things such as counter-economics and direct action, the state will weaken and be easier to remove in favor of anarchism.
Agorism's creator, Samuel Edward Konkin III, went head to head with Rothbard and his followers about it given how much of its philosophy wasn't compatible with their ideas and tactics.
For example: Rothbard rather hypocritically believed that while the state should be eliminated, he held it was an imperative "anarchists" vote people into positions of power within it to help make his supposed anarchist society possible.
In fact let me post up his justification for why supposed anarchists like him should vote. Please hold on to something because this will likely cause you to experience a sudden loss of brain cells:
"Let's put it this way: Suppose we were slaves in the Old South, and that for some reason, each plantation had a system where the slaves were allowed to choose every four years between two alternative masters. Would it be evil, and sanctioning slavery, to participate in such a choice? Suppose one master was a monster who systematically tortured all the slaves, while the other one was kindly, enforced almost no work rules, freed one slave a year, or whatever. It would seem to me not only not aggression to vote for the kinder master but idiotic if we failed to do so. Of course, there might well be circumstances — say when both masters are similar — where the slaves would be better off not voting in order to make a visible protest — but this is a tactical not a moral consideration. Voting would not be evil but, in such a case, less effective than the protest."
Konkin on the other hand lambasted him saying that genuine anarchists should boycott voting in favor of alternatives that don't make use of the political system.
Here's what he said:
"Can you imagine slaves on a plantation sitting around voting for masters and spending their energy on campaigning and candidates when they could be heading for the “underground railway?” Surely they would choose the counter-economic alternative; surely Dr. Rothbard would urge them to do so and not be seduced into remaining on the plantation until the Abolitionist Slavemasters’ Party is elected."
He also pointed out that even if Rothbard's ideal politicians did get into power, there was no guarantee that they'd play ball. So why bother in the first place considering there's no way to kick them out immediately or directly make sure they did so.
If anyone needs another place to study, there's a whole site devoted to it and explaining what it's about here:
That all said, what are you thoughts regarding agorism?