In my own country environmental friendly liberal. For the Dutchies amongst us a VVD which cares about climate change. As for America is current policy screw you Trump by screwing the Paris agreement.

So, I understand that there are market socialists, but I still don't understand why one would want to call himself/herself a left-Rothbardian? Wouldn't it be less confusing calling yourself a mutualist or a market socialist?

I am not a mutualist. You asked how the second person I linked to could support "free-market libertarianism" as a form of socialism, I explained how. I am a left-Rothbardian who believes in lockean property norms and is agnostic on the question of usury (I don't buy into the labor theory of value and accept subjective theories instead, which makes the "exploitation" theory harder to agree to.)

The point that Kevin Carson, who is a mutualist, was making is that Rothbard took very left-leaning views and formed coalitions with left-wing libertarians. He later moved rightward when he was disenchanted with events surrounding weather underground and certain views of the radical left, but others have continued his legacy. An example being Roderick Long.

Kevin Carson believes that there is a lot of common ground to be had between mutualists/market anarchists and left-Rothbardians.

Kevin Carson wrote another article talking about how the only big difference between left-Rothbardians and mutualists is to what extent they believe property could be abandoned before others had rights to it. The left-Rothbardian, who believes in lockean norms, is more permissive to abandoned private property than the mutualist. Kevin Carson predicts that in an anarchic society different communities would have different property norms. I agree with that prediction, but I suspect that more communities would have a common law based on lockean norms than occupancy and use.

The biggest difference between left-Rothbardians and right-Rothbardians is the latter is not commited to lockean property norms, and sometimes confounds artificial (state-granted) property with justified property. Also, the latter often has a view that all property should be individually held, when a left-Rothbardian is much more open to collective ownership (in so much as it was collectively homesteaded.) Being a left-Rothbardian does not imply one is left-wing. I consider myself a libertarian-centrist. I am fine with whatever norms come to exist in the absent of the state. Common law/natural law > statual law.

I am playing devil's advocate

Many conservatives claim global warming is exaggerated. I'd take the risk of being wrong and having nothing occur. Even if global warming is some magical agenda by the illumianti, we still gain a lot by transitioning to things like solar energy.

You're saying that there isn't a single chance of global warming being exaggerated even if there's some pretty serious scientists affirming that? You're saying that never in the history have ever occured that the majority of science was wrong about something? There's no consensus about global warming. Don't talk like there was.

When 99% of the field of scientists say one thing, you dont listen to those 1% that are crazy loonies, who have probably been paid to say whatever they say.

The overwhelming majority of scientists all believe in gobal warming, thats consensus enough for me.

Thats basically my view on it. I believe there "isnt a single chance" of it being exaggerated. I believe theres alot of greedy people that dont care, eitherway, and its their agenda to push this "there is no gobal warming" agenda.

I think that a better political system would get more power to the people and away from ideologically driven parties. The people should have the right to vote on every single subject by themselves, but still be able to delegate that responsibility to a party if they wish.
In my country there is no party that represents my political views but all of them represent a tiny but different part of it. So whatever party I vote for, they will not represent me.

I know Switzerland is like that. Always wondered what it is like not having two political powerhouses decide everything for you

I am the same. It's called Syncretism and revolves around the creation of an ideology that takes traits from all sides of the social spectrum. It definitely reflects my views spledidly. 

The thing with being against Abortion is that you are essentially giving someone else the right over your own body.

It would be no different if I had a life-threatening disease and you were the only person with the necessary compatible bone marrow to save my life, should you also relinquish your rights to say no to me? Or is a Fetus more important than a fully grown human being and should thus get more rights?

I am of the belief that a Fetus does have the right to live. But only if it is able to do so with it's own power and not at the expense of anyone else, otherwise it hasn't earned the right to live. - I honestly don't understand how anyone else could have the opposite perspective, it has always baffled me.