I’m inclined to agree with Nyan that exceptions exist but hard cases make bad law.

Except when he’s not. (E.g., when he’s a liberal, a libertarian, an anarchist, or a common-or-garden American who erroneously calls himself a rightist because he opposes the leftist who “is always a socialist”.) Liberty or equality? I have a problem with leftists. Full-stop.

Ok so vimothy loves the state and thinks it will help protect whatever he likes. However in his invocation of Molbdug, one thing vimothy forgot to mention is that Moldbug points out that such rightist-socialisms never, um, work.

It’s silly to suggest that Roger Scruton is a socialist, ditto for Patrick Buchanan, and on up the entire right-axis to include Evola, Hitler and whoever else.

What motivates libertarians and more mainstream conservatives in these revisionist attempts to re-position those on their right onto their left is the desire to disavow illiberal and morally other elements within conservative (and ultimately right-wing) discourse. But this is both bad form and playing into the enemy’s hands.

If there is such a things as a right-wing socialist (a lot of reactionaries believe there is) – he was right wing and he was a socialist.
So? I don’t care whether Hitler was a rightist or a leftist. I care that he was a socialist. That is the problem.

A leftist is always a socialist. Which is why the two words are pretty much synonymous nowadays.
Now a rightist is not always a socialist. But he can be.

I have a problem with socialists period, Hoppe has a problem with socialists as well. He is arguing against socialism in that quote. Doesn’t matter whether it is done by conservatives or progressives. That is his point and that is what you are misunderstanding. This crucial distinction gets a lot of people confused which is why they say libertarians don’t fit on the general left-right axis.
Ironically enough despite your criticism of the NRO guys you are guilty of a similar conceptual mistake.

(Something must be done, and it is being done, and it’s Bitcoin. ENR-style fascist nostalgia is just an idiotic distraction.)

Under this idiosyncratic and revisionist political taxonomy, the extreme right, and even the mainstream right, is an almost completely empty location on the map, inhabited only by American libertarians and their self-proclaimed predecessors like Von Hayek and Von Mises. Everyone else is on the left! Charles Maurras: on the left. Roger Scruton: on the left. Ezra Pound: on the left. Franco, Salazar, Hitler: left, left, left.

According to Moldbug (if I remember rightly), pseudo-conservatives at the National Review make these sorts of arguments because they are historically and politically illiterate. That might be true to an extent, but I don’t think it suffices as a total explanation. What you also need to understand is that these people are timid and afraid. They don’t want to be associated, however indirectly, with the dispensation that gave rise to the Nazis and the Holocaust, certainly not in the current media climate. Never mind principles, a person’s career is at risk. Instead of saying, “I don’t give a damn what you think, this is what I believe and it matters; I won’t back down”, our cowardly pseudo-cons try to disavow the 20th Century far right and the philosophies that drove it. “Nothing to do with us mate, not only are we liberals, but we’re actually more liberal than you.” No one is fooled. They can see this for what it is: fear, – fear of being put with the right-wing monsters, fear of being seen as illiberal, fear of being one of them – which is why conservatives are constantly giving up ground and have basically lost every major battle for half a century or more.

That obviously doesn’t apply to you or to Hoppe, but I do think that trying to distance yourself from fascism in this manner is both a tactical error and lacking in a certain spirit.