All the other political positions you called out are ideologies and will fail as they require humans to fit into inhumane schemes.
With regard to excess freedom being used to eliminate freedom:
In most every other language there is only one word for 'freedom' and 'liberty'. In French, for example, the word for freedom is liberte. However, in America we often mean different things when we talk about freedom and liberty.
Liberty, when it is distinguished from freedom, is often described as a higher form of freedom. The freedom to do what we ought to do, rather than the freedom to do whatever we can. Liberty is often used in a religious context, some will say that a person is not entirely free if he is enslaved by sin, and so in order for there to be liberty a nation must put in place laws to discourage and/or criminalize the most egregious sins.
Libertarians would strongly disagree. They would say that people should be free to do whatever they can so long as they don't violate the NAP. It is up to each individual to be the best they can be.
Conservatives, on the other hand, recognize that humans are fallen creatures and the activities of some reprobates may impact other citizens; that too much freedom can lead to less liberty overall.
I'm not up on the exact details of the rise of the Nazis, but I don't think it was primarily about creating chaos and then claiming to be the antidote to that chaos. There was already a lot of chaos in Germany due to the extreme economic and social punishments inflicted by the Treaty of Versailles.
The worst that can be said about the libertarians is that they can end up being useful idiots as they lobby for open borders and unrestrained capital. Their intentions are not to participate in some secret conspiracy to help a cabal of fascists into power. Their intentions are to create a free society, that unfortunately is too free and atomistic for the average human and leads to chaos.
This chaos doesn't always lead to fascism. It could lead to communism, democratic socialism, welfare state capitalism, or something else.
It could even lead to a monarchy with a state church that would act to focus the efforts of its citizens toward living holy and productive lives. That is, a nation with less freedom but greater liberty.
Conservatism and liberalism are ideologies, because they mean something. If I asked every conservative what the word means, I would get a largely unified answer with only a little bit of variance. Same with liberalism. They are ideologies. An ideology is simply another way to say what you believe the best way for society to function.
Fascism and socialism and communism are all just subsets of socialism. They all came out of the Austrian school of economics at the same time. They are competing left-wing ideologies fighting to determine the best way for government to control society.
Do not buy into the idea that fascism is right-wing tyranny. It is not. You have right-wing (individualism) and left-wing (statism) everything political is a continuum between those two points. The only way that fascism can be right-wing is in relation to other ideologies, of which only communism is more left-wing. So, anybody who says that fascism is right-wing, they are telling you that they are communist because it is right-wing to them and not in an absolute sense.
There are two types of libertarians, the ones who want you to be free to live your life on your terms and the fascists who use libertarianism to show that it cannot work and the only thing that can work is some level of government control. The latter ones see libertarianism as a means to cause chaos and pain so people cry out for government. They are not real libertarians. As I said, they use the libertarian arguements to hurt people, so those people become supporters of the government. They are not interested in letting you live your life freely as long as they get to do the same.
Real libertarians don’t use their freedom to hurt other people. They just want to live their lives and they let you live your life. The fascists that use freedom to drive the arguement for strong government are not libertarians, regardless of what they say. They are fundamentally oligarchs. They want strong government to control and they use the so-called freedoms to destroy people to make the argument that strong government is the only real option for societal sustainability.
National-libertarianism works. It was what the Founders wanted. Within the country, a very light touch by government. But towards the world, the federal government would not hesitate to project power.
You have to understand that there are real-libertarians and then there are those that claim to be, but really want a socialist government and they use the libertarian arguments to the extreme to drive the debate their way.