I would have to disagree with you. Two examples would be the Bolshevik Revolution and The French Revolution and what followed each.
anarchy and state tyranny are not the same thing.
No but tyranny may very well follow anarchy and visa-versa. It's like maximum randomness on steroids. The answer is true moderation. Again, not the Leftist relativist version but true middle-of-the-road exemplified by our original political and economic systems and freedoms coupled with individual self-governing, self-discipline and moderation.
Neither one of those was based on individual liberty trumping the power of the state. Both were strongly based on the premise that the power of the state should be used to provide individual happiness. Not surpisingly they both killed a lot of people in order to make them happy.
No but tyranny may very well follow anarchy and visa-versa.
Concur, and its a logical argument that a state that is too weak might lead to a strong fisted backlash or foreign domination. However, those are jumps to the opposite extreme, not natural progressions of the movement to its extreme. An analogy is pacifism, which can result in being killed, but will not result in killing.
So we agree that any extreme can be bad, but very much disagree that the extreme position to the right is fascism. All forms of state domination are firmly on the Left, where an all powerful state does what it must to provide for the "greater good".