Ultra Liberals are, as the name suggests, Liberals to an extraordinary degree.
Beliefs and Movements
Their belief in total Freedom for everything means they have a dislike of bottles, or any other containers, as the fluids or gasses within are trapped against their free will. This belief spearheaded the "liberty of fluids" movement in the late 1930s. It was unfortunately cut off mid-point when several people died of dehydration. The policy was never accepted.
Another of the group's historical protest marches was in 1947, in order to force the US government to pass a bill to give water the right to cast a shadow. A representative member of the Ultra Liberals Association of America said "we believe that water should not be exempt from the opacity we all currently enjoy nor taken for granted". The campaign was unsuccessful, but the media attention it generated spurred a vast increase in the number of those who considered themselves Ultra Liberals. Some experts believe it lead to the creation of the Ultra Liberal Party in the UK.
British Ultra Liberals have also been known to support the chav. This is considered their most controversial and extreme of their policies, given that the UK government accepted calls for them to be used in laboratory testing in 2049. They posed several arguments against chav testing, mainly related to Ultra Liberalist views, but their main argument was "how can the research be applicable to humans?"
Ultra Liberal Party and Parties
formation and uprising
The formation of The Ultra Liberal Party was discussed in a small café on 27th February 1950. A spokesperson at the time of the formation said: "this is a new party for a new half century" The American Ultra Liberals Party was formed between 1953 and 1958, and both parties achieved mild success. With more movements and publicity, more, independent, foreign parties were set up in other countries
Through good PR, the newly formed United Ultra Liberals society (reg. charity) quickly generated more media attention, and they managed to secure the backing of celebrities such as Tom Cruise, after his fall-out with Scientology. Tom Cruise is said to have said: "I have seen that Scientology is not the path for me," Tom Cruise is said to have said, (Tom Cruise lost a lot of money earlier in the year, in other, non scientology related ways. Scientology HQ backs this up, threatening to sue anyone who disagrees with them) "but I have seen a new path- the Ultra Liberal Party. I want to help people, because I care for you all." This rapidly accelerated growth of the Party, and it quickly became successful but their explosive success was matched only by their sudden downfall.
They quickly became an important political power in the both the UK and the USA, with it taking the oppositional party (2nd place) in the UK government of 1964. this power came and went in little over a decade, and settled into 3rd place (UK) in 1979. USA took roughly the same path. The Ultra-Liberal party experienced a period of extreme unpopularity during the 1980s, but revived itself under the nickname "new ultra-liberals" for the 1996 election. It gained substantial popularity at this election and was a hairsbreadth from taking power.
The downfall (sometime between 2020 and 2030) of The New Ultra Liberal Party occurred after critics of the Party pointed out that some Ultra Liberals policies were conflicting with each other; namely; their policy that the Sun should be able to choose whether to shine or not and the policy that water should be able to cast a shadow. What followed was a mass rift in the party, which lost the confidence of the voters in all countries with the party. Following this argument against the Ultra Liberals beliefs, the true reason for its downfall was because True Freedom, the true goal of all Ultra Liberals, was suddenly seen as unattainable. This led to many Ultra Liberals becoming depressed and leaving the party, many by suicide (remembering not to trespass the freedom of the object they used). The remaining members were, of course, more passionate about their beliefs and they settled into debating new policies. As an example, "should the rights of humans be considered more important than that of Post-It Notes?"
The Freedom Compromise was going to be the saviour of the party. Unfortunately, heated discussions and disagreement split the party into 2 sections, which they in turn sub-split into subsections themselves. (note that sub subsections and further splits past that also occurred.) This dissipated the supporters. meaning, although they had many believers, they had very little political power
Possibly the most successful split was the Humanitarian Ultra Liberal Party. Favoured by many of the favoured remaining Ultra Liberals, it favours the rights of humans over other, less favoured objects and organisms, as a preference.
This has led to criticism from other sections that the Ultra liberals are really not supporting the "core" values of the Ultra Liberal ideology.
Probably the least successful split was made by Bach T. Rear who believed that micro-organisms, because they were in greater numbers, should be given rights above that of humans. Unfortunately, he died of influenza at the age of 36 before he could unveil his exact policies.