Not necessarily, I noticed there are fundamentalists in every segment of society: wether political, religious or even a-religious. There are fundamentalists everywhere. Now as long as they are minorities it is all bearable Not sure about the numbers of fundamentalist libertarians. But no suprise if there are some that can be fittingly descriped as such.
No i think libertarianism is a very fundamental political philosophy, which is one thing I dont particularly like about it.
You can be a fundamentalist anything. A fundamentalist libertarian wouldn't compromise on libertarian values such as small government, personal liberty, isolationist foreign policy, etc. In other words, they'd be a dumbass.
Not really into labels since it is used to mostly divide or isolate people so they are easier to judge. If you really want to discuss the principals of libertarianism and what that translates to in today's society, I'm game.
IMO, Ron Paul and his son Rand are good examples of Libertarians. Stay out of foreign countries' business, legalize weed and create a system that makes many good uses of hemp. Make our own country better instead of everyone elses, at our taxpayers' expense. Make the Federal Reserve system (who controls our currency) accountable. They have not been held accountable for monetary flow at ALL. A simpler, smaller Federal government that gives the individual states power to manage their own people. Most everything that Ron mentioned in his 2007 book "A Manifesto" has happened. There's even a bumper sticker with his face on it, says "I told you so". And he did. Our media blocked him like a group of pro NFL linebackers. He won the Rep. CPAC two terms in a row, yet the "Media" held him out. Good Job!! "They" are the ones who are really running the United States right now.
fundamentalismnoun [ U ] US [SIZE=1.063em]/ˌfʌn·dəˈmen·tə[/SIZE]lˌɪz·əm/ the belief that the traditional principles of a religion or set of beliefsshould be maintained From this Cambridge Dictionary definition it appears one can only define any form of fundamentalism from it's adherence to the set of beliefs it is maintained on. As Libertarianism itself came to us in a number of variants we appear to need to add qualifications to the term 'Libertarian' itself. Is this getting too complicated? Maybe we can settle for an easier approach and just define the term as applying to any person adhering (mindlessly?) to any religion or philosophy without ever questioning it's foundations? There's also the difficulty of differing national uses of the term. Instance, in the US 'Liberartian' has a sublty different meaning from in, say, Australia. Anyhow, you know for instance you're dealing with a 'Randian Fundamentalist' if in any discussion you're hit over the head with large chunks if Ayn Rand's works as justification for every view. You know you're dealing with a Christian fundamentalist if they rigidly interpret the bible without any acknowledgement towards the last 200 years of academic biblical studies. Myself I find the notion of a hippy libertarian somewhat contradictory given my association of the term 'hippy' with the idea of Peace, Love and Understanding. Misty eyed old fool that I am.
Piss of a liberal? Is that part of a witch's brew? Like....one single hair from a goat, two teardrops from a virgin, and the piss of a liberal?
He's obviously referring to the OP as "Piss of a liberal." Buy a firearm, Bilby! Buy a firearm, piss of a LIBERAL! I guess. I don't know.
The issue is what are the traditional principles. I see libertarianism as filling a logical gap in the US ideological political spectrum. Conservatives want government out of the economy but into the bedroom. Liberals want the government into the economy but out of the bedroom. Collectivists want the government in both places. Libertarians want it out of both. I'm trying to think of what a "non-fundamentalist" libertarian would look like. Ron Paul opposes abortion. He voted in favor of a federal ban on partial-birth abortion in 2000 and 2003, and sponsored the Sanctity of Life bill defining life as beginning at conception. However, he thinks regulation of abortion should be largely left to the states, as it was before Roe v Wade in the days of back alley and coathanger abortions. He also strongly supported Texas' right to ban sodomy between consenting adults, and criticized the Supreme Court's decision declaring the Texas law unconstitutional. Is regulation of our morals by the states libertarian? I think what he is primarily is a fundamentalist states' rights constitutionalist who reads the constitution the way fundamentalist Baptists read their Bibles. When constitutional literalism conflicts with libertarianism, libertarianism gives, so Paul isn't a fundamentalist libertarian--just a crazy mixed up politician.
Sorry Okie I see things in a different way 1) Conservatives want government out of the economy but into the bedroom. Well some right wingers claim to ‘want government out of the economy’ but often the reality is that they wish government to help wealthy vested interests to gain in the economy. It’s about making the economy serve the interests of wealth (which so often supports the right). The claim ‘American capitalism’ or ‘free markets’ but basically is a con game to serve the interests of wealth. Right wing libertarians are not separate from that con game. There are sections of the right that use ‘culture war’ issues to bamboozle certain voters into voting against their financial self-interest – it says ‘bedroom’ here but these things take in religious beliefs, homophobia, gun rights and the scapegoating of immigrants and disappointingly catering to actual racist views. 2) Liberals want the government into the economy but out of the bedroom Ok thing is that Liberals are basically the centre right in US political terms and most are supports of neo-liberal economic ideas but believe that the markets and the economy needs regulating to serve the interests of more than just wealth they still support wealth and often serve its interests but they don’t think it should have all of the pie. In ‘culture war’ terms they oppose racism and homophobia and believe in some level of gun control. 2) Collectivists want the government in both places Okie not sure here the ‘collectivist’ jibe seems to me is a rather dishonest trope of the right (to try and paint anyone with left wing views as ‘collectivists’ the code for hard-line communists). To me that is silly and divorced from reality. Most on the left are more likely to be supporters of Keynesian type economics than Marxist. Basically they think societies and the economy should serve the interests of everyone in it not just or mostly for the few. So they support such things as top quality education and training for all, universal healthcare, living wages and descent welfare and social services. They are committed to fighting against racism and bigotry of any type, and so work to help such groups with publically funded programmes and education. 3) Libertarians want it out of both. Well first off most people who identify as Libertarian in the US are right wing Libertarians (there are many shades including left wing Libertarians). As indicated right wing libertarians are just another part of the right a rather extremist part (they are like the hard-line communist of the right). Basically they don’t really care about anything but to serve the interests of wealth, forget about all the talk about liberty and freedom that’s just rhetoric, there main concern is to create a society that favours wealth to the detriment of everyone else. There ideas are mainly based on two bogus ideas those of Social Darwinism and free market economics People that are rich deserve to be rich people that are poor deserve to be poor so society’s benefits should go to the deserving and not to the underserving. There should be no regulatory protections or public assistance for workers, a labour policy of work or starve, any healthcare would be based on ability to pay (they don’t care when you have an abortion or how many times you have one as long as you pay). If you want a police force you have to pay if you can’t get a gun. They don’t care about what the colour of your skin is or if you are gay (especially if you have money) but they also don’t care if ethnic groups or homosexuals are discriminated against. I could go on but I think you get the picture.
You're right, I was painting with a broad brush and speaking of ideologies instead of actual behaviors and motives. I was mainly concerned with addressing the anomalies of American usage of the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative", often summarized as favoring government intervention versus laissez faire. My point was that in the U.S., Conservatives tend (officially/ideologically) to favor laissez faire in the economy (also on issues involving group inequalities, affirmative action, etc.) while advocating government regulation of morals. My "bedroom" reference was a metaphor for a broader range If we take a closer view at actual behavior, your more nuanced take becomes apparent, especially at the elite level where actual policies are pushed. Conservative elites want, as you say, government to advance their interests and take actions which benefit them. For the CEOs of multinationals, this would mean tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, and cutbacks in social programs for lower classes. Of course, the top echelon has a foothold in all camps, and all American politicians have to court at least some of them to get elected. To get even more nuanced, we can identify three components or emphases in the "Conservative" rank-and-file coalition: Economic (Establishment) Conservatives, who are mainly concerned with eliminating government "handouts" to "moochers"; Social Conservatives, who want government to take action to uphold traditional moral and social values (Evangelicals, etc.); and Nativist/Populist voters of Trump's anti-establishment base (Alt Right, Tea Party, etc), favoring government action to protect whites and nationalist economic interests . Each of these components has its elite puppet masters who pull the strings to advance their own interests--Multinational CEOs for the economic conservatives, religious leaders for the Social Conservatives, the Mercers and the Koch Brothers, for the Nativist/Populists, etc) We could identify counterparts for the Liberals, who draw elite support from Silicon Valley, and are divided at the rank & file level into Establishment Liberals like the Clintons, Lunchpail Liberals like Joe Biden's fans, and Progressives who respond to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. And there is lots of overlap and ammunition for challenge by folks who resist putting people into "boxes". Libertarians, who tend to be laissez faire on both economic and social matters, seem to rally around three main issues: economic deregulation, isolationism, and non-interference with morals (smoking weed, abortion, pornography, etc.) As you say, economic libertarians, including "Randroids" tend to be predominant, but candidates of the Libertarian Party try to appeal to all three interests. The Objectivist libertarians, in particular, fit the "Social Darwinist" description, but most economic libertarians would justify their position along the lines of Adam Smith, naive as that might seem. As for the "collectivists", I agree they don't have much of a presence in western democracies at the moment, but they have in the past and do elsewhere, e.g., Cuba. Marxism-Leninism would be the prototype. There are disturbing authoritarian tendencies in pockets of the campus left, although those seem more anarchist than Marxist.
