Interesting topic on alternet that talks about libertarianism being associated with conspiracy.

[nanotchi]

And boy, was it a circus. Many members of the group were obsessed with the gold standard, the Kennedy assassination and the Fed. Although Libertarians believe government is incompetent, many of them subscribe to the most fringe conspiracy theories imaginable. Airplanes are poisoning America with chemicals (chemtrails) or the moon landings were faked. Nothing was too far out. A great many of them really think that 9-11 was an inside job. Even while basking in the electoral mainstream, the movement was overflowing with obvious hokum.

http://www.alternet.org/why-i-fled-libertarianism-and-became-liberal

Then next day, I ran into that same operative at the convention, and I complimented her because Ron Paul delegates were being accepted into the crowd. I added, "We're going to win this thing."

"Bring in the clowns," she said, and smiled before I lost her in the mass of people.

I will never forget that moment: Bring in the clowns. At the time, I considered myself a thoughtful person, yet I could hardly claim to be one if you judged me by the company I kept. The young lady knew something I had not yet learned: most of our supporters were totally fucking nuts.

 

[Pete Tar]

Response...

Edwin Lyngar was a Ron Paul delegate in 2008. Once he got to the GOP convention, he was baffled by the number of Birthers, Truthers, MoonTruthers and Chemtrailers who apparently made up his fellow Paulbots.
...
Though there are generally agreed upon tenets in libertarianism, there is also tedious in-fighting and minute-to-vital points of disagreement on issues, interpretations, and conclusions. We are not your cheap Dagney Taggart or Randy Weaver jokes, as much as you try to cram us into that convenient mold. We are diverse, and by God, we will shoot ourselves in the foot whenever possible. (Lyngar does acknowledge this incompetence later in the piece, so at least he's not one of those "dear God, the libertarians have taken over!" folks.)
...
I'm going to give our friend the benefit of the doubt and say, sure, okay, you met three libertarians who were most passionately opposed to school lunches. That was their number one issue, closely followed by the horrors of unemployment insurance. But there are a lot of libertarians who would prefer to tackle the bigger issues first: war, prisons, police, the drug war, financial ruin for the country, occupational licensing, zoning laws, lack of school choice, the death penalty, transportation, whatever you like. And you would know that if you spoke to more than three libertarians — that no, most of them wouldn't start with cutting the lunches for shoeless Appalachian children program. They'd probably start with trimming the military, the Department of Homeland Security, or that sentimental favorite, the Drug Enforcement Administration.
...
To paraphrase the best French guy ever, Frederic Bastiat, man, liberals really seem to think that if you're not for government funded, or government-run institutions, you must be against them entirely. Parks are awesome. Some parks also have a long history of hilariously-arrogant mismanagement by government. And it's cool that you love communities. That means literally nothing in general, and nothing specific to libertarianism. Most of us do not wish to live alone, Unibomber-style. But we're very keen on anyone's right to do the best they can at achieving that sort of lifestyle.
http://thestagblog.com/salon-publis...n-piece-yet-with-more-back-patting-than-ever/

 

[George B]

Response...

Edwin Lyngar was a Ron Paul delegate in 2008. Once he got to the GOP convention, he was baffled by the number of Birthers, Truthers, MoonTruthers and Chemtrailers who apparently made up his fellow Paulbots.
...
Though there are generally agreed upon tenets in libertarianism, there is also tedious in-fighting and minute-to-vital points of disagreement on issues, interpretations, and conclusions. We are not your cheap Dagney Taggart or Randy Weaver jokes, as much as you try to cram us into that convenient mold. We are diverse, and by God, we will shoot ourselves in the foot whenever possible. (Lyngar does acknowledge this incompetence later in the piece, so at least he's not one of those "dear God, the libertarians have taken over!" folks.)
...
I'm going to give our friend the benefit of the doubt and say, sure, okay, you met three libertarians who were most passionately opposed to school lunches. That was their number one issue, closely followed by the horrors of unemployment insurance. But there are a lot of libertarians who would prefer to tackle the bigger issues first: war, prisons, police, the drug war, financial ruin for the country, occupational licensing, zoning laws, lack of school choice, the death penalty, transportation, whatever you like. And you would know that if you spoke to more than three libertarians — that no, most of them wouldn't start with cutting the lunches for shoeless Appalachian children program. They'd probably start with trimming the military, the Department of Homeland Security, or that sentimental favorite, the Drug Enforcement Administration.
...
To paraphrase the best French guy ever, Frederic Bastiat, man, liberals really seem to think that if you're not for government funded, or government-run institutions, you must be against them entirely. Parks are awesome. Some parks also have a long history of hilariously-arrogant mismanagement by government. And it's cool that you love communities. That means literally nothing in general, and nothing specific to libertarianism. Most of us do not wish to live alone, Unibomber-style. But we're very keen on anyone's right to do the best they can at achieving that sort of lifestyle.
http://thestagblog.com/salon-publis...n-piece-yet-with-more-back-patting-than-ever/

Hmmmmm . . . libertarianism and conspiracy buffs ???? The connection now makes some sense . . . guess people willing to ignore traditional Democrat and Republican doctrine are more likely to reject the norm and look for alternative philosophy and reality . . . maybe we are simply contrarians . . .

 

[Mick West]

Hmmmmm . . . libertarianism and conspiracy buffs ???? The connection now makes some sense . . . guess people willing to ignore traditional Democrat and Republican doctrine are more likely to reject the norm and look for alternative philosophy and reality . . . maybe we are simply contrarians . . .

Or perhaps it's just that conspiracy theorists tend to be libertarians, not the other way around.

If you were highly suspicious of the actions and motivations of those in power, then what political ideology would you chose to follow?

 

[Pete Tar]

It's definitely a noticeable phenomenon though. Maybe they need to poll themselves and find out what proportion do believe questionable things and which are more rationally focused.
The loudest and most visible may not be representative of the whole, but they will give that impression to outsiders.

 

[JRBids]

Or perhaps it's just that conspiracy theorists tend to be libertarians, not the other way around.

If you were highly suspicious of the actions and motivations of those in power, then what political ideology would you chose to follow?

A lot of them don't vote at all.

 

[Mick West]

A lot of them don't vote at all.

Very true, but some will want to, and if they are going to pick a party, they which would they pick?

 

[Pete Tar]

Aren't there lots of independent parties to vote for? (Shooters and Fishers Party, Sex Party, Legalise Pot Party, etc)

Voting is compulsory here, so I number all the alternative parties first, (about 160 individual boxes), adding the two majors (the only real 'choice') last. You can also choose to vote for women ahead of men this way.
I don't know if that has any effect, but if enough did it then there would be much more variety in parliament, and lots more views to take into consideration when passing legislation, which would hopefully lead to better compromises for all represented interests.

 

[George B]

Or perhaps it's just that conspiracy theorists tend to be libertarians, not the other way around.

If you were highly suspicious of the actions and motivations of those in power, then what political ideology would you chose to follow?

I would think of those who vote . . . they would seek a political party not aligned with those powers they feel have always been historically in control . . . which means a third party candidate which means an Independent . . .

 

[Mick West]

Aren't there lots of independent parties to vote for? (Shooters and Fishers Party, Sex Party, Legalise Pot Party, etc)

Not really. In most elections in the US there are only two or three candidates. Only high profile elections attract the Monster Raving Loony style candidates. The Tea Party is basically a branch of the Republican party, but sometimes is in contest with it locally.

 

[Jeremy]

Penn Jillette is a rational skeptic who rejects conspiracy theories, so it is a little unfair to lump in all libertarians as such.

 

[Mick West]

Penn Jillette is a rational skeptic who rejects conspiracy theories, so it is a little unfair to lump in all libertarians as such.

Who did? The point is there's an association.

Many people I meet at skeptics conferences are libertarians too. Some of them used to be conspiracy theorists. I suspect the association might be stronger with young libertarian.

 

[Spectrar Ghost]

Only high profile elections attract the Monster Raving Loony style candidates.

We so need them to start an American branch. Trump would finally have a home.

(To be fair, Sanders too, though his problem is fixed more easily - get a haircut, and learn not to be so direct and honest about your vision, because both are unsettling to the general public)

 

[Psychic]

I haven't spoken with many libertarians, but the famous ones, like Ron Paul and Thomas Sowell, seem to be rational, level-headed and conspiracy-free.

 

[SR1419]

I haven't spoken with many libertarians, but the famous ones, like Ron Paul and Thomas Sowell, seem to be rational, level-headed and conspiracy-free.

You sure about that?

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arc...anuary/14/charlie-hebdo-shootings-false-flag/

The Charlie Hebdo affair has many of the characteristics of a false flag operation. The attack on the cartoonists' office was a disciplined professional attack of the kind associated with highly trained special forces; yet the suspects who were later corralled and killed seemed bumbling and unprofessional. It is like two different sets of people.

Two days after the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity republished a column suggesting that last week's terror attack on the satirical French newspaper Charlie Hebdo was a "false flag operation," the former congressman himself weighed in on the conspiracy theory Friday, saying his group ran the column simply to pose some questions about the official version of events.

"It's sort of like — the people of this country especially have lost a lot of confidence in governments per se, including our own," Paul said. "I mean, we've been trying to get to all the answers of Benghazi, and of course 'Fast and Furious' was a scandal, nobody believes those answers. Eighty percent of the American people don't even believe the Kennedy Commission on who killed Kennedy. So people are very skeptical, and I think this is the whole point."

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/ron-pauls-world/?_r=0

But there is one major aspect of the newsletters, no less disturbing than their racist content, that has always been present in Paul's rhetoric, in every forum: a penchant for conspiracy theories.....

...Paul then went on to stress the negligible differences between various "Rockefeller Trilateralists." The notion that these three specific groups — the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Rockefeller family — run the world has been at the center of far-right conspiracy theorizing for a long time...

....Paul has frequently attacked the alleged New World Order that "elitist" cabals, like the Trilateral Commission and the Rockefeller family, in conjunction with "globalist" organizations, like the United Nations and the World Bank, wish to foist on Americans. In a 2006 column published on the Web site of Lew Rockwell (his former Congressional chief of staff and the man widely suspected of being the ghostwriter of the newsletters, although he denied it to me), Paul addressed the alleged "Nafta Superhighway." This is a system of pre-existing and proposed roads from Mexico to Canada that conspiracy theorists claim is part of a nefarious transnational attempt to open America's borders and merge the United States with its neighbors into a supra-national entity. Paul wrote that the ultimate goal of the project was an "integrated North American Union" — yet one more bugbear of conspiracy theorists — which "would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether."

....
Finally, there's Paul's stance on the most pervasive conspiracy theory in America today, the idea that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were perpetrated not by Al Qaeda, but by the federal government or some other shadowy force. While Paul has never explicitly endorsed this claim, there is a reason so many 9/11 "truthers" flock to his campaign. In a recent YouTube video posted by a leading 9/11 conspiracy group, "We Are Change," Paul is asked, "Why won't you come out about the truth about 9/11?"

Rather than answer, say, that the "9/11 Commission already investigated the attacks," or ask the questioner what particular element of "the truth" remained unknown, Paul knowingly replied, "Because I can't handle the controversy, I have the I.M.F., the Federal Reserve to deal with, the I.R.S. to deal with, no because I just have more, too many things on my plate. Because I just have too much to do."

Paul knows where his bread is buttered. He regularly appears on the radio program of Alex Jones, a vocal 9/11 and New World Order conspiracy theorist based in his home state of Texas. On Jones's show earlier this month, Paul alleged that the Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador on United States soil was a "propaganda stunt" perpetrated by the Obama administration.

 

[deirdre]

You sure about that?

i dont pay super attention to politics, but i always thought he was a Republican. go figure.

 

[SR1419]

i dont pay super attention to politics, but i always thought he was a Republican. go figure.

Well, he was vying for the republican nomination so, that is understandable.

 

[Psychic]

i dont pay super attention to politics, but i always thought he was a Republican. go figure.

He is a Republican. That's what you get in a two-party system - Nelson Rockefeller in a party with the John Birch Society, George Wallace with Robert Kennedy, Bernie Sanders with Joe Lieberman, Jeb Bush with Ron Paul. It's slightly bizarre, but there's American politics for you.

Btw in the quotes above Paul sounds like he doesn't believe the CT himself but he's aware that many of his supporters do and he's trying to placate them. This is the same approach Jeb Bush and Chris Christie have to climate change - they say things along the lines of 'I'm not a scientist, but scientists are sure this is real', implying that they accept it as fact while avoiding an explicit acknowledgment to play to their voters.

 

[SR1419]

Btw in the quotes above Paul sounds like he doesn't believe the CT himself but he's aware that many of his supporters do and he's trying to placate them

Thats seems generous. He is a politician and thus likely savvy enough to keep them (CTs) at arms length- but clearly postings on his institute's website suggest he his not "free" from CT's

Nonetheless, this quote sounds like he believes what he says.

Paul wrote that the ultimate goal of the project was an "integrated North American Union" — yet one more bugbear of conspiracy theorists — which "would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether."

 

[Psychic]

Thats seems generous. He is a politician and thus likely savvy enough to keep them (CTs) at arms length- but clearly postings on his institute's website suggest he his not "free" from CT's

Nonetheless, this quote sounds like he believes what he says.

Paul wrote that the ultimate goal of the project was an "integrated North American Union" — yet one more bugbear of conspiracy theorists — which "would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether."

Writings with odd or controversial content have been misattributed to Paul in the past; I'd reconsider my position if you could find an article or speech in which he says something CT-esque with his own mouth (or pen).

As for his being a savvy politician: Paul frequently makes odd and highly unpopular public pronouncements (consider for example his flaunting, at seemingly every oppurtunity, his extreme stances regarding the Fed, the gold standard and foreign affairs), and I'd imagine that were he to believe in a CT he'd be forthright about it.

 

[SR1419]

Writings with odd or controversial content have been misattributed to Paul in the past; I'd reconsider my position if you could find an article or speech in which he says something CT-esque with his own mouth (or pen).

...I'd imagine that were he to believe in a CT he'd be forthright about it.

You suggested he was "conspiracy free". The Charlie Hebedo article on his name-sake website- regardless of whether he wrote it or not- is enough to debunk that claim.

I dont see how anyone can be a frequent guest on Alex Jones' show and be considered "conspiracy free".

His comments on the CFR and Trilateral commission could be pulled from any number of posts by CTs on this site or found in Info Wars etc...:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/12/23/ron_paul_on_the_trilateral_commission.html

Nonetheless- this statement seems quite forthright:

The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union — complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/10/ron-paul/the-waco-summit/

 

[Psychic]

The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union — complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/10/ron-paul/the-waco-summit/

That satisfies my criteria. I confess myself quite surprised.

 

[deirdre]

Nonetheless- this statement seems quite forthright

huh. i didnt even know that was a thing. or that he was saying that about the Hebedo murders!

Paul sounds like he doesn't believe the CT himself but he's aware that many of his supporters do and he's trying to placate them

placate them? oh bunk. Trying to excuse the killers for murdering people is trying to excuse the killers for murdering people. Period.

No sane person would allow such things... such CT type speculation with no evidence, to be posted on thier website just to "placate people". Who would even want such supporters! They are not a help to any 'political change' you might want to try to get accomplished, they are an albatross.

That's the problem with many false-flag conspiracy theorists, they can't see the difference between 'having questions' and being disrespectful ghouls.

sorry, to be so blunt. i didnt know he was a false flagger until today.

 

[Inti]

Or perhaps it's just that conspiracy theorists tend to be libertarians, not the other way around.

If you were highly suspicious of the actions and motivations of those in power, then what political ideology would you chose to follow?

Well, I can see that. However, I have known a certain number of Marxists and a larger number of anarchists who were definitely conspiracy theorists.

Mind, until the first half of the 80s I mostly heard and used the term "libertarian" as a short version of "libertarian socialist", which overlaps with anarchist. When the right wing version of libertarianism was first becoming widely known, I heard an anarchist/lib socialist call it "libertarian against government but highly authoritarian in favour of property and economic power".

 

[April.]

When I got into conspiracy theories I was very libertarian and practically ancap at the time. The logic being: terrible evil government unsurprisingly does horrible thing (9/11). Lots of political conspiracies at first since "those are the realistic ones". I still have a very anti-government viewpoint, and my political views only shifted left because I realized capitalism is yet another part of that corrupt system. There's not too many of us lefty conspiracy theorists. Practically everyone is libertarian so it can kinda be a bit weird at times with a political clash. But ever since Biden became president I've been seeing an influx of left-wing conspiracy theorists flood into related spaces so... Ironically most truthers won't consider themselves right-wing or libertarian. Instead it's "neither left nor right, we're outside of that". And I can get that to an extent, and I think it's partly why Andrew Yang's message hit hard with me, "not left, not right, forward".