@ElwoodBlues I do think that parts of the libertarian, neo-liberal and objectivism in it's American framework, created the problem though. At the end of the day, Trump himself is not really an ideologue. The ideological push comes more from the coalition of far-right wing organisations that are backing him up. Trump himself, is largely a guy that works for himself and only himself. Rands' vow to enter Atlantis:


Is not compatible with public service or a head of state. But that's kinda what is happening.

@Northwest Well, this faction sure does seem to have internalised the propaganda.

I also remember Donald Trump being booed at the libertarian congress a year ago.

Diffrences of opinion are really common for liberals, so I don't really hold arguments and inn-fighting against them. It comes with the territory. I do however think that if you call yourself "libertarian", and you cheer for the acts of authoritarians... that the "libertarian" label, becomes an aesthetic instead of an ideal.

@Kwek00
It also seems true of the extreme left (I'm using it the European way, not the daft way used to describe Democrats in the USA). I think the more you move to a 'purist' position on either wing of politics, there are those who want to be purer still - hence the signs of MAGA infighting. Remember the way that the Russian Revolution was full of purges from the beginning. Some was purely a power struggle, but there were ideological drivers as well.

@FreddieUK On the far-right there are factions too... But liberalism is special. And the reason why it's special, is because the individual is way more prominent in it's ideology. Anglosaxon countries, due to their voting system, I think, are more shielded from this behavior. But comming from a country that has a proportional voting system, which doesn't reduce the entire framework of political parties to 2 (and sometimes 3) contestants, I can tell you that in my experience liberal parties are way more cut throat. Espescially the center of liberalism (classical liberalism), where the ideology turns "individualistic" to "individualism" you have more of a party of individuals. Those individuals can still sometimes fall into faction on a certain toppic but these factions deteriorate as quickly as they came to be once another question pops up on the table. When it comes to parties that have a larger sence of community, from my perspective, the iron law of olicharchie (Robert Michels) is way more enforced or just accepted. For liberal parties, this idea of a strong leadership and the collective agreeing with it for victory sake, is in direct conflict with the idea that individuals need to be individuals at all time and not fall into collectives.

Also, when I talk about liberalism, I'm also using it in the terms like it is supposed to be used. I'm not going to let that term be corrupted by right wing American propaganda as a catch all for every faction that excist from center to the far-left.