You hacks really are into belonging to a party aren't you? Jefferson, Adams, to an extent Washington were Classical Liberals. They would be considered libertarian then as well as today. Just because the name changes doesn't mean the ideology has necessarily changed. Because someone has a party affiliation by their name does not mean their ideas or even themself are owned by the party.
As Ronald Reagan would say, "there you go again". The Libertarians don't believe that the states, or any government, should "have a say" in the above listed "issues", so trying to stamp their imprimatur on your "Dixiecrat" view of the Articles of Confederation (which are a dead letter, get over it) is disingenuous to the extreme.
Ah, good, more non-sequiturs. You can't defend your party so you attack others. For the record at no point did I advocate or support the national Libertarian Party. I support the ideals of libertarianism. Returning to the values and limitations found within the Constitution of these United States. Something neither party advocates, supports, or even speaks of anymore. Sure for a good 20-25 years Republicans talked a good game. And yet when they were elected very rarely did they do anything different.
I didn't know you were channeling the Framers, but riddle me this, what would have happened if some good proto-Libertarian had been distributing porno or drugs
Sigh, I'm going to state this one more time but it will go over your head (again). The 10th Amendment is crystal clear. If that power does not belong to the federal government it belongs to the separate states and the citizens thereof. Give Federalist 45 a read (since you've never read it). Hamilton is clear what powers belong to the states and what powers belong to the government. Pornography, drugs, etc. are issues that would fall under 'The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.' It would seem that the Framers understood it and yet the national moral warriors want a standard from 'sea to shining sea'
I have no problem with establishing some moral laws within the states. I would support a few myself. But it was never, is not, and never will be under the intention of the Framers for the federal government to pass moral laws that would suit you.
As for your flag issue? Find me a majority of Framers that would advocate saying pledges to national symbols why don't you? What would they say of precious 'conservatives' that are so gung ho on protection of a symbol while destroying the rights it's supposed to represent?
I got your "over my head" right here in my hip pocket. Since you won't address any of my questions (e.g. what 'remedy' would the Framers recommend for pornographers, blasphemers, drug pushers, abortionists...?), and since you change the goal posts at will ("I'm in line with the Libertarians...well, I don't really support a lot of what the Libertarians believe...Ronald Reagan adopted 'libertarian' themes...I didn't mean Libertarian libertarian themes, I meant "classic liberal" libertarian themes, as I intuit them"), I think we've gone as far as we need go. Besides I wouldn't want to wake you from you dreams of the Articles of Confederation, mint juleps on the veranda, your "house servant" fanning away the blue-tailed fly, while the "field hands" bring in your cotton crop...