Heinleinland and Randovia are not real places but mental exercises in sheer and utter kookery. They make fine fiction because that is exactly what they are. Most libertarians that I know are radical ideologues who would destroy the country to refashion it in "anything goes but traditional values" image. That makes them the opposite of conservatives.
(Still, I do applaud you personally for trying to distance yourself from the ACLU.)
Fell asleep during history class again didn't you?
You obivously don't know ANY libertarians then. Most of us sound just like me...
They rejected as defining an impractically weak federal government. They still defined a limited role for the federal government, with explicitly defined responsibilities and powers that did not extend down to the management of affairs of individual citizens.
The Articles of Confederation was predictated upon the existence of a very weak federal government joining together thirteen powerful and largely-independent states. While most libertarians recognize that the federal government needs to have some power and ability to raise revenue, the Articles allowed it basically none.
Under the Articles, the supreme entity was not the individual; the supreme entities were the thirteen states. Some of the states had government religions, and imposed many laws that libertarians would frown upon.
The Articles of Confederation were not libertarian. They were far from it, because they failed to protect rights. The Constituiton which the founders created to replace it was far more libertarian in that, it had the capacity to protect rights and included a Bill of Rights enumerating specific protections.
What was not provided was an effective mechanism to protect rights. That was left up to the electorate. As DeToqueville noted, rights protection went down the toilet when the electorate discovered the public treasury. In addition, the protection of any particular right, or rights in general is left to the mercy of the tyranny of the majority.