Not really. It's usually more "Splitters! People's Front of Judea!" jokes.
Anarcho-capitalists can get into it sometimes. And other more fervent anarchists of various stripes, C4SS just published this that starts with GamersGate a few days ago:
http://c4ss.org/content/35931Stop and think about this for a minute: These are people who actually call themselves libertarians — advocates of human liberty — and who presumably want to spread these ideas in society at large and attract new adherents to them. Hoppe’s prerequisite for a “libertarian society,” if you want to call it that, is for the minority of rich property-owning paterfamiliases who have appropriated all the land in a society to round up all the people with beliefs or lifestyles they disagree with, and forcibly evict them. North would add stoning to the list of sanctions. “We can only have a totally free society after I’ve expelled all the people who do things I disapprove of!”
They don’t favor liberty because it promotes the widest possible flourishing and self-actualization of human beings. They favor it because it gives local patriarchs and lords of manors a free hand to dominate those under their thumbs, without a nasty state stepping in to interfere. For them, “libertarianism” — a term they pollute every time they utter it with their tongues — is simply a way of constructing the world of Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale by contractual means. And Block, who shares beliefs with Men’s Rights Advocate creepos and “Race Realists,” is apparently ready to pack up his bags and leave libertarianism for the neo-reactionary movement at a moment’s notice.
...
A certain kind of libertarian, disproportionately represented in the mainstream of the movement, takes a similar view of women, queers and people of color who invade their stronghold and try to put social justice concerns on the table. These people are used to seeing libertarianism as the final refuge for rational white middle-class males like themselves, where they can hide in the catacombs and read “Isaiah’s Job” to each other while the outside world goes mad under the onslaught of statist racial minorities and welfare moms demanding handouts from the government. And here a girl has the nerve to show up in the clubhouse and suggest that issues like racism, sexism and homophobia (or anything else besides Bitcoin, vaping, Uber and the capital gains tax) should be taken seriously by libertarians.
In both cases, the reaction is one of outrage — taking the form of trolling, abuse, insults and threats — at the affront to their sense of entitlement.
A libertarian movement with this demographic as its core base is doomed to extinction. The reason is that these people, for the most part, aren’t interested in winning hearts and minds among the general public. They’re not interested in recognizing the concerns of poor and working people, women, LGBT people or people of color as legitimate, and showing ways that an ideology of human freedom can address those concerns in a meaningful way. They’re interested in being superior, in being the last tiny remnant of rational people who’ve not bowed their knees to the collectivist Baal.
They’re interested in convincing themselves that, contrary to common sense perceptions, white guys in $3,000 suits, investment bankers and venture capitalists are the state’s true victims, and the enormously powerful constituency of black welfare mothers are its main beneficiaries.
Frankly, I’m sick of libertarian outreach being sabotaged by the need to apologize for people like this. I’m sick of trying to challenge the perception of libertarianism as the movement of entitled 20-something middle-class white males who think “big business is the last oppressed minority,” and the world is going to hell in a hand-basket because of women and racial minorities — and then going to Mises.org, Lew Rockwell, Cato and Reason and seeing a bottomless cesspool of people saying that very thing.
I don't particularly agree with his view of Mises since they've transitioned to mostly being about interviewing/publishing a wide-spectrum and doing "civil" debates.
One similarity even though they agree like 95% on stuff is that Lew Rockwell writers often fight with other libertarians more than anarchists do I think though. They accuse Reason/Cato of being "cosmos" for thinking that cultural factors can contribute to the spread of libertarian ideas and as a bulwork against statism. Especially over gay issues, Lew Rockwell tends to take a negative view because it's "another foot in the door for the state!" while Reason/Cato's view is more "look, we can't change the system immediately, so equal rights even if it leads to some bakers being sued is a problem with other laws, not gay people or gay marriage."
If you want real fights, it's Objectivists vs. everyone else. Especially on foreign policy. Objectivists are totally down with the whole white males who run corporations are the pinnacle of human society, other countries violate rights so their people don't have rights because they implicitly support that nation by not leaving so turning them into glass is justified, etc.
Voluntaryists are an incredibly small segment of the whole libertarian/anarchist axis. I think it's because of the whole focus on talking and educating (ymmv) and thinking about things instead of engaging in pointless political fights. Most other groups want to talk about events in the news and elections and take positions on everything. Voluntaryism is a bit more about...
...
...synthesis.
