I’m not thinking about the some normal libertarian who might be a Ron Paul fan, supports minimal government and minimal intrusion into personal freedoms, and so on. I’m thinking about the crowd that …
Refuses to pay income tax, because they believe Ohio wasn’t properly admitted to the Union, and thus the state’s vote for the 16th amendment is invalid.
Drinks colloidal silver.
Goes on and on about “fiat money”.
Listens to shortwave radio a lot.
Refuses to use Zip Codes because they feel they define illegal federal territories.
Constantly looking for loopholes so they can “invalidate” laws such as vehicle registration and driver licensing (so they can drive without a license), zoning, and so on.
You won’t find such stuff in in the pages of Reason (AFAIK) and I’m sure the LP does not officially support any idiot legal arguments or tinfoil asshattery. Nevertheless, in the rank and file . . . I used to go to monthly parties given by a local big-L Libertarian (now deceased). Most of the people I met there were quite reasonable sorts, but some were convinced the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal courthouse was engineered by the FBI as a pretext for a crackdown on dissidents, things like that, and hinted at (or openly boasted of) personal involvement with “militia” movements. There’s definitely some overlap with the Timothy McVeigh sorts; how much is anybody’s guess.
Some people listen to shortwave radio as a hobby; I’ve never heard of any political aspect to it. Do some people seek it as an alternative to government-licensed radio?
Pardon my ignorance . . . Why does anybody drink colloidal silver?
Years ago, when I lived in Colorado, there was a radio station around Greeley that had a self-proclaimed libertarian agenda. They aired a LOT of ads for colloidal silver and other oddball “alternative” miracle cures that “the medical establishment didn’t want you to know about.” Drinking colloidal silver can give one argyria; it turns your skin blue. Several years ago, a blue-sknned Libertarian from Montana ran for Senate; he drank colloidal silver.
For those, at least, there is a name (other than “morons”): Tax protesters. (Not to be confused with tax resisters, who claim no legal pretext for refusal to pay.)
Yes, while neither the Cato Institute or Reason magazine or the Libertarian Party gives any credence to such beliefs, there are a large number of people who hold these beliefs who are also attracted to the libertarian movement. In general, these folks mistrust the power structure and, as such, tend to believe a lot of crap simply because the government/media/The Man have labeled it as “false.” Vaccines are recommended for kids? Then they must cause cancer/autism/vampirism. You have to pay the income tax? No, it was never legaly ratified. The courts have authority over you? No, if the flag has a gold fringe border and you say “Tubalcane” five times fast the judge will let you go.
Because of their mistrust of authority and their tendency to live on the fringes of society, a fringe political party which has, at its core, the mistrust of authority is certainly attractive. Plus, in a libertarian society the government would not be around forcing them to pay taxes or take vaccines or regulating their homemade medicine or forcing them to send their kids to school.
There are also the people ranting about ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government).
This is a definite type, but you’re right that there doesn’t seem to be a single descriptive name for adherents of this outlook. I like to describe it as “somewhere beyond fascism in the hinterland bordering paranoid schizophrenia”.
It’s not a new phenomenon either. HERE is the story of how a federal proposal to enact a mental-health bill for the then-territory of Alaska became a full-blown panic about “government concentration camps”.
BTW, even as ordinarily rational person as Robert Heinlein was susceptible to that particular form of crankery. See this thread. Not really so crankish in his case – he had no pet legal theories about “fiat money” (which to most of us simply means “money” – how many can remember when there was any other kind?) being unconstitutional, and certainly none about an evil cabal of Je- [ahem] international bankers; he simply seems to have regarded it as presenting too great a risk of inflation, and metallic or metal-backed currency as somehow more “natural,” an attitude which is, you must admit, perfectly . . . natural.
