For those struggling with new terminology, bear in mind that a "liberal" and a "libertarian" are not the same thing, at least not according to the dictionary. Bear in mind also that what actually appears might not well fit the terms currently in dictionaries. It might prove that lately the distinction between the terms has eroded.
It is difficult to describe a fascist libertarian. Some Republicans will think you mean Hillary Clinton by the term. Some Democrats will think you mean Donald Trump. To better understand what one is, it might serve to examine whence they came. They came from the organization paradox. Let's review.
A few months short of three years ago, on September 28, 2013, my article Navigating the Organization Paradox appeared on the "Examiner.com" website. It was and is, at least here, a news analysis story. If you already read the 2013 article you can skip ahead to Update 2016.
A problem existing from time immemorial, as well as being news today, is whether every helping hand lightens the load or too many cooks spoil the broth, although not always in those words. Terminology in recent usage includes design by committee, size of government, freedom and organization.
History suggests some balance might be optimum. Abuse can occur where there is no organization to prevent it, and when an organization to prevent abuse is empowered it can itself abuse that power. The long search for the point of minimum abuse generally strays too far one way then the other.
By the time of the founding of the United States there was a well developed sense of that point of minimum abuse and founding documents were designed to obtain it.
While principles are one thing, their application often proves to be quite another. It is rarely simple to navigate a paradox. It usually requires experience and expertise.
A major problem with the organization paradox is the disadvantage one side has getting organized. The Tea Party for example has difficulty because its identity is not based on particular issues so much as it is largely understood as being opposed to organization. People with little education on the inherent flaws of too much "organization" are likely bewildered by the need for a Tea Party and how it could work.
Another problem especially lately is that when the majority fails, it at times does not recognize the failure. It is especially true of atheism and some mostly atheist Christian denominations which have no fear of God or have any other rule to follow than the majority. It was quite early noted that when the majority realizes it can vote itself wealth, it would, with possibly catastrophic results. The current budget crises in this country, several European countries, and some states and cities in these United States highlight the hazards of redistribution of wealth by voting.
As the errors of government by claptrap become increasingly obvious, organizations like the Tea Party will need to expand. They will need to be careful to develop a dialectic to navigate the organization paradox.
It is not enough merely to point out that the majority opinion of science and real science are two different things. It is necessary to point out that the majority opinion of good government and actual good government can be two different things. The health care law is obviously bad science, but it still seems like good government to too many people.
It will be necessary to organize on behalf of limiting, however sensibly and systematically, the power of organization. That is obviously no simple task. It will not succeed with simple minded people.
You might not hear about the organization paradox on the evening news on television. They don't ordinarily analyze the news there. On the Sunday news analysis talk shows you might not hear much about it either. Of course the "Tea Party" might get a brief mention, and several commentators will themselves try to "navigate the organization paradox" even if they don't call it that.
It should be clear here though that the organization paradox is a problem from which most of the other problems in the nation flow, even today, especially today.
The phenomenon is world wide too. Britain just voted to leave the European Union. Time will tell how wise that was.
It is perhaps more clear now how fascist libertarians emerged, the ineptitude at navigating the organization paradox.
An important question for voters in the November election is whether to vote for the party or the candidate. For example, will Trump get more votes because he is a Republican or because he has a new direction, a new identity, for the party? Might he get more votes because he is not a "Republican" as many understand the term? Similarly, will Clinton get more votes because she is a Democrat or because she has a new direction or identity for the party? In other words, will either candidate navigate the organization paradox better than their parties in general and to date have?
Already the most awkward of campaigns in history, how will the candidates distance themselves from fascist libertarians, and should they if "most people" apparently want some brand of fascist libertarian or other?