Covers the history well? Not really. He just has a slick narrative. His “church and throne” comment is historically illiterate, and he doesn’t know much about serious libertarianism, including it’s strengths, divisions, and and weaknesses. His comments about Rothbard aren’t serious, nor are his comments about the Old Right. Goldberg sometimes makes sense on current issues, but even then he far to GOPe/neocon.
libertarian thought started with Joshua: “Choose ye this day whom ye will serve. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” That is followed by the book of Judges observing that everyone did what he thought was right in his own eyes.
Judeo-Christian libertarianism is the basis for all libertarianism in the US. Rand is just branched off from Judeo libertarianism by leaving “the Lord” out of it.
The theology of Cain is the constant enemy of Judeo-Christianity. God asked Cain “Where is your brother?” Cain did not want to answer God. So Cain raised a non-sequitor: “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
Of course, the Judeo-Christian answer is “No, I am not my brother’s keeper. I am my brother’s brother.” A keeper is superior to his brother. Zoos have keepers. Prisons have keepers. Plantations have keepers.
I am my brother’s brother is the true Judeo-Christian position. But our sinful nature of pride wants to believe that we know what is best for the brothers. Thus, our sinful nature leads us away from Judeo-Christian libertarianism and into the brothers-keeper theology of Cain, the first theologian who tried to improve on God’s idea.