Én af Krabaskens helte er den amerikanske “fusionist” (udtrykket blev vist nok møntet af Murray Rothbard), Frank S. Meyer (1909-1972) (her er wiki’en og her er Rothbards pudsigt ambivalente statement om Meyer).  Krabaskens har den største sympati for Meyers projekt, kombinationen af kulturkonservatisme, håndfast udenrigspolitik og økonomisk liberalisme.

Meyer var en fyndig mand. I en artikel i National Review i 1969 skriver han, formentlig i irritation over Rothbard og Karl Hess’ flippede flirten med hippierne (læs Doherty om dette), følgende kloge ord af betydelig relevans også for forståelsen af de mange flippede danske libertarianere, der reelt er De Radikale + frie markeder:

The underlying issue between conservative libertarianism and libertine libertarianism is at bottom a totally opposed view of the nature and destiny of men. The libertines … are ideologues first and last. That is, they reject reality as it has been studies, grasped, understood, and acted upon in five thousand years or so of civilized history, and pose and abstract construction as the basis of action. They would replace God’s creations of this multifarious, complex world in which we live and substitute it for their own creation, simple, neat, and inhuman — as inhuman as the blueprints of the bulldozing engineer.

 The place of freedom in the spiritual economy of men is a high one indeed, but it is specific and not absolute. By its very nature, it cannot be an end of men’s existence. Its meaning is essentially freedom from coercion, but that, important as it is, cannot be an end. It is empty of goal or norm. Its function is to relieve men of external coercion so that they may freely seek their good.

It is for this reason that libertarian conservatives champion freedom as the end of the political order’s politics, which is, at its core, the disposition of force in society, will, if not directed towards this end, create massive distortions and obstacles in men’s search for their good. But that said, an equally important question remains. Free, how are men to use their freedom? The libertine answers that they should do what they want. Sometimes, in the line of the philosophers of the French Revolution, he arbitrarily posits the universal benevolence of human beings. He presumes that if everyone does whatever he wants, everything will be for the best in the best of all possible worlds. But whether so optimistically qualified or not, his answer ignores the hard facts of history. For it is only in civilization that men have begun to rise towards their potentiality; and civilization is a fragile growth, constantly menaced by the dark forces that suck man back towards his brutal beginnings.

The essence of civilization, however, is tradition: no single generation of men can of itself discover the proper ends of human existence. At its best, as understood by contemporary American conservatism, the traditionalist view accepts political freedom, accepts the role of reason and innovation and criticism; but it insists, if civilization is to be preserved, that reason operate within tradition and that political freedom is only effectively achieved when the bulwarks of civilizational order are preserved.

Libertine libertarianism would shatter those bulwarks. In its opposition to the maintenance of defenses against Communism, its puerile sympathy with the rampaging mobs of campus and ghetto, its contempt for the humdrum wisdom of the great producing majority, it is directed towards the destruction of the civilizational order which is the only real foundation of a real world for the freedom it espouses. The first victim of the mobs let loose by the weakening of civilizational restraint will be, as it has always been, freedom—for anyone, anywhere.