That's going to be problematic, for most of its history libertarianism and anarchism have been synonymous at best and close twins at the worst up until Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises. Much of libertarianism, especially in the US, was based on the ideas of people like Henry David Thoreau which were strongly anti-authoritiarian against all forms of authority, both state and private. Many libertarians up until the 1920s were actively involved in socialist organizations and considered socialism to be a viable route for realizing their goals. It wasn't until much later that libertarianism in the United States started actively courting capitalism as a source of inspiration.
Well, interpret it as modern American Libertarianism. Minarchism within the confines of a Democratic Republic, with an emphasis on individual liberty.
Sorry.
I'm not even going to go in to the rest of it because I don't want to start a flamewar, but you have to realize that historically speaking, these are incompatible and mutually contradictory positions in 19th century politics.
Pro-gold meant an adherence to deflation and a fear of inflation, favoring creditors over debtors, and favoring finance over agriculture.
Pro-silver AND bimetallism AND fiat currency advocates wanted inflation as a means of reversing the deflationary trend of the gold standard, to ease the burdens of debtors and farmers at the expense of the bankers, and to spread currency to the cash-poor West and prevent it getting sucked up by the East.
The two sides saw each other as the instruments of the downfall of civilization.
I'm talking about a movement that is fundamentally against printing TOO MUCH money to increase inflation regardless of level of debt. Any standard is better than paper to the type of person I'm trying to describe.
I do understand the differences in the three options I described, and was using additional options (other than gold) to allow you to describe any scenario you wish in which gold didn't necessarily have to be king to this movement, but a standard did need to exist.
Preferably Gold.
Successful libertarianism is an oxymoron.
In it's purest form, (the form most often compared with anarchism), I would have to agree. Is there absolutely no way you can inject a slightly more modern American approach to the movement into American history before the movement existed?
I realize it takes a little bit of imagination and originality. I apologize, but that's why it's a Challenge.
Just a note, he's talking about POD's before Anarchism and the word "Libertarianism" as a formal political idea existed. Which means all of this is not only historically simplistic but especially irrelevant. Even if he was talking about later POD's it'd still not matter because we know what he's talking about and he's not talking about Left-Libertarianism. I don't think he cares if the word "Libertarianism" means what Americans say it means currently in this alternate timeline.
I actually don't require the word "Libertarianism" to be used at all. But, since you know exactly what I mean, why not have a go yourself?
Promoting the smallest possible government intervention in the sovereignty of the individual, within the confines of a Democratic Republic.
Socially liberal, fiscally responsible.
Are you suggesting it's impossible? That direct type of answer would be helpful for the reasons why I posed the question in the first place...
(I assumed that was obvious, sorry.)
I think what needs to be pointed out is that all those things listed are not core concepts of Libertarianism in the first place.
Firstly the only major group that advocates the Gold Standard are the Paulites, and whether or not they're actually libertarian is questionable, given Ron Paul himself is only anti-Federal government but does'nt have a problem with the State governments being authoritarian and anti-Freedom.
Secondly being Pro-Military is not a defining characteristic of Libertarianism, and indeed their are probably more that are anti-giant military than their are pro, and that's in the modern day, in the past people in general, regardless of ideology were generally suspecious of a large military, hence why America did'nt really develop one until WWI.
Libertarians of the Gary Johnson variety (and I'm including the man himself) are also pro gold standard, while realizing the difficulty and improbability of that occurring in our current economic and political climate. Those in America who are Libertarians but not Paulites are similarly minded, but most prefer the concept of bitcoin. Would you care to try to fulfill the challenge between 1800 and 1970 using bitcoin? I'm intrigued! (But fear I shall be disappointed...)
Rep. Paul being anti-Federal government (which is untrue, if you did a little more research, the correct description would be anti-too-much-Fed.-government/intervention) means that it would be hypocritical for him to oppressively force a state or local government to change their laws concerning individual liberty. I think Paulites are trying to say: if your state suddenly makes laws against things that feel oppressive or authoritarian to you, move nextdoor to the state that isn't.
And while this is being subtly pushed further out of the forum I desired for it (seeking originality) and into... I don't know... Chat? Modern Libertarians (and Paulites especially) statistically were the most pro-military faction of American politics in the current election, (which is why Dr. Paul got more donor support from American military personnel than any other candidate - before the convention, of course) because not only do they believe the military is one of the few responsibilities of the Federal government, but they also support non-interventionist policies...
Perhaps I should ask for some help here...
Can someone who knows what I meant to say redefine the parameters so that I can avoid getting flamed (which hasn't happened... but neither has any original content attempting to fulfill the challenge...)?
For a TL I'm working on, I REALLY need to know what a movement analogous to today's mainstream American Libertarian (Or a social liberal progressive, fiscal conservative, small government, i.e. Republican Libertarian) movement could be possible and how early.
Nitpicking what I mean, isn't going to help me. You know what I mean. A Ron Paul or Gary Johnson type movement MUCH earlier, in fact as early as possible...
That is why I created a... challenge. I'm a writer, not a candidate. Stop hating and get creative.
Love you guys, thanks!