Honestly John, why do you engage in a discussion with that guy?

Of course, the term “libertarian” had been used since (at least) the 1890s as an alternative to anarchist, i.e., a supporter of anti-state socialism of the kind advocated by Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, and, more recently, Noam Chomsky. Its first use in this context dates back to the 1850s. It still means that in Western Europe, although the US definition (which dates back to the 1960s/70s) is becoming more used in Britain—sadly!

Libertarians in this traditional sense tend to call the US-style “libertarian” propertarians, for obvious reasons. Still, it is ironic that defenders of private property effectively stole the term “libertarian” from the left!

It’s a pretty neat trick.

On the one hand progressive taxation is an American tradition. Obama’s proposals fit within that tradition.

Implicitly and often stated explicitly it is his opponents with their flat tax proposals and other schemes to rob from the poor and give to the rich who are the radicals.

On the other hand they are also the conservatives Hayek identifies.

Maybe Hayek was referring to American conservatives and maybe not. Whatever.

Hayek would almost certainly look kindly on current American conservatives with their SS privatization and flat tax proposal schemes as opposed to just looking to provide a brake against the worst excessives of progressives.

1) Aristocratic conservatism. This strain is what a European in the 1800’s would probably have meant by “conservatism”—an ideology designed to preserve the power of the landed gentry over everyone else. The plantation South (particularly the VA and SC Tidewater) are exemplary of this type of conservatism; think of Jefferson’s contempt for cities and city-dwellers. In the US, this conservatism tends to be Anglophile.

2) Nationalist conservatism. This conservatism is the American equivalent of French Gaullisme. America should be powerful, not constrained by treaties or international bodies, etc. A lot of the neo-cons fall in this class, as does Pat Buchanan. While not necessarily nativist, this conservatism tends in that direction.

3) Communitarian conservatism. This conservatism is probably the strongest in the current environment—the group that wants community norms to stay about the same. It includes the religious conservatives whose main concern is keeping their communities similar in family structure and political ritual to the past, the local production activists, many of the protectionists, and so on. Think of Wendell Berry, or Ross Douthat.

4) Liberty-conserving conservatism. This conservatism sounds like a contradiction in terms, but is a fairly big part of the coalition in the US. As “liberalism” has become the side of politics that is in favor of more rules in many areas and more technocratic government, “conserve our historic rights” is a big rallying cry. This group tends to include the libertarian-leaning conservatives—think of the Volokh bloggers, or the Institute for Justice, or FIRE.

I’m fairly sure that the aristocratic conservatives were a significant target for Hayek, and the liberty-conservers weren’t.

That bit has always made me want to suggest “catellaxetarianism” as an alternative.

“In the United States, where it has become almost impossible to use “liberal” in the sense in which I have used it, the term “libertarian” has been used instead.”

And in the next sentence goes on to describe why the term itself is at issue.

“It [the term libertarian] may be the answer; but for my part I find it singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute.”

Put the right word in the blank and that’s Leo Strauss.