He's certainly guilty of overstatement and divisiveness, but there's also the question of coherence. How do you condemn socialist egalitarianism for revolting against nature, while also praising liberal civilization for doing the same, albeit to a different degree? And where does the moral condemnation come from if you mean to defer to natural facts? The overstatement would be his entire criticism of egalitarianism.

I have another article on Rothbard coming out soon which will dive deeper into his views.