I take liberty to mean the capacity of an individual to undertake autonomous action. Liberty grows from responsibility, a word that derives from “promise in return”: the responsible person makes a promise to themselves—say, as is now notorious, to tidy their room—and their capacity to keep this promise increases their realm of autonomous action; namely, they go to a gym, master calculus, and turn up on time for a job—each fulfilled promise increases a person’s capacity for autonomous action, e.g. by ensuring their financial independence through regular work.
A person’s opportunities in life, man being intensely social, depend on their ability to signal responsible action, so making responsibility synonymous with trustworthiness—we want to know which men will fulfil their agreements with us. An organic society is the sum of these trustworthy connections grounded in responsibility. Liberty is biologically determined, since the ability to make contracts with oneself and others is linked to the ability to delay gratification; and this facet of a human being is heritable. Hence the proportion of freemen in any society is biologically limited, if we assume those people capable of liberty have not been perverted.
To be responsible does not mean to be dull, although it is true that the all-round responsible suburban dad is, frankly, boring—though he is the decent backbone of society. Any achievement, from pop music to warriorhood, is grounded in responsibility; it is just that the pop musician devotes all his responsible action to his music—perhaps otherwise being chaotic, a source of novelty and inspiration for his music. The warrior is responsible in his disciplined training and coordinated action with his fellow soldiers, though his final goal, unlike the suburban dad, is to unleash chaos on an external enemy—to create a situation in a rival society that is akin to general irresponsibility. The Western right, insofar as it represents—or purports to represent—the interests of the typical middle-class homeowner, does appear dull; yet few people would want to grow up as the child of a pop star—the dullness is also security and amiability.
The uneven distribution of the ability to delay gratification and be responsible leads to differences in the distribution of goods in a society, since responsible action leads a person to accrue more goods, both physical and intangible; hence left-wing action aims to disrupt the organic networks of trust built by freemen in order to increase equality through “the bed of Procrustes”; it is not possible to make people more responsible and more free, but it is possible to hobble those men who are free. The right is mostly concerned with limiting the government’s ability to infringe on liberty. It follows that only freemen should have the vote and a say in government—as used to be the case, formerly only property-owning men could vote.
The left—a bit like the pop star—is composed of people who are only responsible with regards to their party and ideology, not wider society. As with the soldier, the left acts in a disciplined and responsible way to maximise chaos and irresponsible action; except they do so within their own society, not an enemy society. This occurs because the left grows out of the middle class; the middle class believes in the non-coerced exchange of goods; they sustain this view through a religious sensibility that centres on social conformism—and this conformism can mutate from politeness to outright lies via status competition.
If the goal of the non-coerced exchange of goods is taken to its logical conclusion through deluded status competition, we arrive at communism—theoretically, the completely non-coerced exchange of goods. The left consists of those intelligent and religious, in the widest sense of that word, middle-class people who believe in the absolute moral virtue of the non-coerced exchange of goods and take this view to its logical conclusion—the abolition of property, the last coercive relic of feudalism—and so collapse society in the midst of ideological delusion.