libertarians and consipracy theories

So I've been trying to figure out lately whether I'm more "conservative" or "libertarian." I don't really align completely, or close to completely, with either. These days I'm more inclined to label myself as libertarian simply because the common notion of what a conservative is has been drifting farther and farther from true conservativism. I don't see myself as one really, but it gets closer to the mark than the conservative label does. I probably agree more with the stereotypical libertarian "I hate everything that could possibly control me" nutcase than I do the neo-con "we right, them wrong, no ask why" one.

Anyway, I've just spent the past few hours reading more stuff on Ron Paul and watching more videos of him -- that's becoming an interesting but very time-consuming hobby -- but mostly reading about conspiracy theories. This started with a Vox post about the supposedly faked lunar landing. What!? Yeah, for real, there are folks out there who think the whole moon landing thing in '69 and subsequent ones after that (by the U.S. anyway) were just staged to make America look good and justify the HUGE amount of money poured into the space program and related projects. This seems so outlandish to me that it isn't even worth taking seriously, but with some otherwise reliable folks coming down on the other side I figured I'd at least check it out.

And, well, my opinion of that conspiracy theory as wack hasn't changed. But at least it's humorous to see everyday folks with little or no knowledge of the high-level stuff being questioned pointing out how the plans don't make sense, or how the photos were obviously faked because of x or y inconsistency with what they've seen before, or how a lunar vehicle that looks like that thing in the display case can't possibly have survived a moon landing. I mean, these are voices of intelligence and expertise speaking here, right? Right...as plenty of responses written by real physicists and the like point out, these people are just grabbing for any apparent surface inconsistency without bothering to look into certain inconvenient realities like the difference in gravity on the surface of the two bodies and the limitations of telescopes and satellites in our atmosphere with regard to the size of various objects in space. This simply adds support to my own theory that some people are so eager to believe the government has duped them and is duping them that they're ready to bite on just about any supposed evidence that even suggests such activity.

Which brings me to libertarians and their frightening tendency to cling to conspiracy theories. I'm not sure this generalization is true, and maybe it only holds among the very few sites I know libertarians to frequent, but what I've seen indicates that there are a lot of libertarian nuts out there purporting all kinds of funky crap. For example, if they're right, then history as it's commonly accepted needs to be rewritten to include, among many others, the following clarifications:

* Every lunar landing by the U.S. was faked, and sloppily at that.
* Saddam Hussein never, ever had WMD's (I guess the Kurds just did it to themselves).
* The pyramids were not built by humans.
* The U.S. government staged 9/11 so they could start a Middle East rampage.
* JFK was killed by [enter the name of any person, group, government, weapon, or method -- except Lee Harvey Oswald with a gun]. (Okay, people have been recycling this one nonstop for almost 44 years now, but hey, it's still going strong.)
* McVeigh was in cahoots with [enter a foreign government] on the OKC bombing.
* And so, so many more...I didn't even get to UFO's, Pearl Harbor, etc.

Now I'm not saying I absolutely believe all of the above are false. Maybe some are true. But when the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of one position, even the most popular one, then why dig for shreds of evidence here and there that could, maybe, possibly, remotely point to another set of events? Just put aside the nonconformist stint long enough to admit the less exciting tale is the most likely one. This makes me think of people who drum up single "gotcha's" based on some far-fetched set of circumstances to prove the Bible must be false while apparently not realizing that their version is much more laughable in comparison. As they say, don't make things more complicated than they are.

I admit that I myself buy into some of the "conspiracy" stuff, but certainly not with the eagerness and devotion of those I'm referring to. For example, if every time the government is challenged on a particular requirement -- like, say, paying taxes -- it responds not by taking the easy route and showing proof of the legitimacy of the requirement, but rather by using its size to put on a show of force and strong-arm Joe Citizen into compliance, then one can't help but wonder if there are questions Uncle Sam just can't answer or doesn't want to answer* -- and Uncle Sam knows the bully in the park doesn't have to answer to anyone. Other things, like the Branch Dividian compound inferno from the early 90's, may somehow fall into the conspiracy bin for others, but regardless of what the "official" story is I don't consider it a conspiracy theory if the truth is commonly known and accepted.

In light of this, I wonder if perhaps some libertarians out there get their political bent from a general distrust of everything more than just a dislike of big government. In other words, they're paranoid of any large group and hate them all. And maybe others just don't want a government big enough to pull off all these hoaxes that they're tired of seeing. Not that I'm not happy to see them vote in favor of true conservative candidates, of course, I'm just not convinced their motivations are the same as mine or even reasonable.

----------
* An ingenious solution would be to require any law enforcement official or agency to show proof of his/its authority to carry out a certain action, similar to a search warrant. Cops on the roads should have in their cars copies of the laws pertaining to their authority to stop speeders, control disputes on private property when necessary, and the like. I don't think many people would ask for this sort of stuff, and surely every now and then the cop wouldn't have it handy, but it'd set a good precedent. It would allow people to demand to see the law in writing without such an action being somehow "resisting authority" or whatever. And it could prevent such cases as the fiasco in New Hampshire, in which the Brown's have asked the feds to show the legal trail that ends in their being required to submit an income tax return and the feds thus far have refused. (In this case, rather than send the relevant documentation, maybe included with a "here's our proof that you're violating laws on the books, so it shoud come as no surprise to you that you're under arrest" court date, they have chosen to spend lots of money and time on surveillance and legal action and the like. Hmmn. Then again, the government is unfailingly stupid beyond comparison so maybe I shouldn't expect any better.)