[Post "Introduction to 'Reactionary Liberty: The Libertarian Counter-Revolution'"]

For libertarians like myself, Dr. Ron Paul’s 2008 and 2012 presidential runs were an absolute revelation. During the debates and in his media appearances, we saw a humble and decent man tirelessly seek out the Remnant of liberty in our dark age of perpetual war and unlimited state power. With uncompromising courage, Paul introduced millions of people to libertarianism.

Witnessing Paul openly denounce the Iraq War, central banking, and the entire premise of global empire launched my own personal philosophical journey. The works of Frederic Bastiat, Henry Hazlitt, and Friedrich Hayek began overflowing my bookshelves. And when I eventually began reading as much Murray Rothbard as I possibly could, I was hooked.

[...]

Up until the end of Paul’s last presidential run and his retirement from public office in 2014, libertarianism fell on the Right side of the political spectrum by default. Its biggest proponents and advocates rarely spoke too loudly on cultural issues, but whenever they did, they were unmistakably un-Leftist.

Fast forward just two years after Paul retired, and the libertarian movement is now a shell of what it used to be. Its major party candidate in 2016, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, exemplifies this direction that libertarianism has taken ever since. Johnson, who displayed little intellectual curiosity and even rejected the key tenets of libertarianism (the non-aggression principle and free association), never missed a chance to advertise his politically correct, Leftist positions on marijuana, gay marriage, and abortion. Johnson even bragged that he is politically quite similar to fellow 2016 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, a not too subtle attempt to appeal to young liberals.

What in the world happened? How did libertarianism evolve from a highly disciplined and radical study of economics, rights, and the use of force in society (that also understood the necessity and desirability of hierarchy and tradition), into the milquetoast branding of “low-tax liberalism” and “fiscally conservative and socially liberal?”

[...]

This book, then, is dedicated to what I call reactionary liberty: the defense of radical libertarianism and an unapologetic cultural traditionalism that rejects, root and branch, both state power and cultural Marxism. While libertarianism as a political philosophy concerns itself only with the question of political force, I argue that the libertarian ethic of non-aggression and private property necessitates a rejection of egalitarianism, multiculturalism, and diversity. “Private property capitalism and egalitarian multiculturalism are as unlikely a combination as socialism and cultural conservatism...libertarians must be radical and uncompromising conservatives,” argues Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Without this reactionary element, libertarianism can never be a serious movement because it will always fall victim to John O’Sullivan’s Law: that any movement, entity, or institution that is not explicitly right-wing will eventually turn left-wing. While libertarians may believe that they are “above” or “beyond” Left and Right, the Leftist infiltration of libertarianism (combined with the evolutionary psychology of r/K selection theory) proves that libertarians cannot be neutral.

Thus, the reactionary libertarian prefers the conservative Edmund Burke to the revolutionary Jacobins of the French Revolution. “Burke argued for the traditional liberties of the English against the ‘abstract’ Rights of Man advocated by the revolutionaries, predicting correctly that such abstract rights, with no force of custom behind them, would perish in a reign of terror,” notes Joseph Sobran. “The revolutionaries, he said, were so obsessed with man’s rights that they had forgotten man’s nature.”

[...]

For the reactionary libertarian, this requires an uncompromising opposition to this cultural Marxism—a counter-revolution against the perpetual revolution of Leftism. Individuals are different from another, and not equal; we live in an unavoidably tribal world; men and are not women and women are not men; freedom is both a responsibility and a right; democracy must be de-legitimized, but if we are to live in a democratic society, then the franchise should be severely limited. These insights into the human condition—including a complete rejection of egalitarianism—form the foundation for a consistent, coherent, and forceful philosophy of liberty.

[...]

The Italian traditionalist Julius Evola wore the term “reactionary” on his sleeve proudly, calling it “the true test of courage.” With this book, I look to blend this Evolian courage with a radical libertarianism to forge a coherent and forceful philosophy of liberty—reactionary means for libertarian ends.