>>9
not quite, at least from how I learned it. at the far left and far right extremes, you get a weird hyperspace meeting of the two ends of infinity where you have totalitarian regimes whose idealogies may be defined differently, but are alike as far as utter lack of personal freedom is concerned. also, 0% government is anarchy by definition (an- = no, -archy = rule) which is a typical desire of protestors that show up at WTO locations and are labelled as leftists. rightists for 0% government would be extreme libertarian, but again because of high personal freedom being the opposite of totalitarianism, the left/right stuff doesn't make so much sense at the extremes if you are only using one scale. so is anarchism the same as libertarianism? maybe in practice, but the ideas have different historical background in development and people might be more sympathetic to one word over the other.
We can use two or more scales to have a more complicated way to categorize political orientation. The politicalcompass.org website uses two scales: left/right for x-axis and authoritarian/libertarian for y-axis. That means that someone who scores to the left isn't necessarily for lots of government -- they could be anarchist. And someone who scores to the right isn't necessarily for little government -- they could be fascist.
Yes I'd say that the Founding Fathers were very learned of philosophies and wanted a balance of freedom and order.