I should here draw a big, bright line between the matter of PUBLIC Property and PRIVATE Property. I believe that will help to bring my position into better and more exacting relief.
As concerns Private Property, the Authority of the Civil Magistrate is Biblically quite narrow -- because there is a very limited sphere of authority under which the Magistrate may invade Private Property without such property-invasion constituting a Biblical "Trespassing". Generally, the Magistrate only enjoys Biblical Authorization to invade Private Property in order to punish, in general, Private "aggressions against the Neighbor" (Romans 13:10), and specifically to punish Murder, Adultery, Theft, Fraud, and Abusive Malfeasance (Romans 13:8-9). Such property-invasions do NOT constitute a Biblical "Trespassing"; they are, in fact, the Magistrate's righteous duty in keeping with his obligation to enforce the Second Table of the Decalogue, the Civil Law.
However, when the Magistrate invades Private Property for reasons other than the enforcement of the Second Table of the Decalogue, he acts outside his Biblical Authority, and so commits a Biblically-unlawful "Trespassing" (even should he do so for the very "best intentions", by which the Road to Hell is paved).
By contrast, as concerns Public Property, the Authority of the Civil Magistrate may be very broad indeed, acting in his Office as the Representative Proxy of the Corporate Owners (that is, the taxpaying citizens) who corporately own those Public Commons. For just as you, as the Sole Owner of your own Private Property, have an Owner's Right to establish Rules and Regulations for all whom you consent to enter your property; so likewise you, as a Partial Owner of the Public Commons, have an Owner's Right to vote together with your fellow Part-Owners as to the Rules and Regulations which shall govern your taxpayer-financed Public Properties. This would (of course) include Rules and Regulations against Public Lewdness, Public Intoxication, Public Nuisance, Disturbance of the Peace, Driving Under Influence, and whatsoever other Rules and Regulations which you and your fellow Corporate Owners (that is, fellow taxpaying citizens) agree together as should govern your mutually-owned Public Commons.
As such, my Biblical-Theonomic position might best be described as Propertarian, rather than strictly Libertarian. I believe in the rectitude of Moses' Laws in their defense of Private Property, and the righteousness of the Biblical commandments against Trespass.
I do utterly reject the modern "Social Conservative" idea that it is permissible to Trespass upon Private Property to enforce moral diktats unrelated to the Civil Law of Moses, as though Jesus Christ went around breaking down the doors of Private Property and putting a sword to sinner's throats if they over-indulged in a bit of private intoxication (when we know that He did not).
But at the same time, I do utterly reject the modern "Libertarian" idea of Free Expression uber alles, which pretends that the Taxpayer-Owners of the Public Commons have no right to establish Rules and Regulations for the usage of the Public Properties which my (and your) taxes pay for. As a Capitalist, I would prefer to Privatize as much as possible; but as long as we have Public Commons, we taxpayers have an Owner's Right to establish regulations thereupon.
I believe this "Propertarian" Political Philosophy to be, on the whole, more organically-Biblical and more commensurate with the full Law of God than either the diktats of the Social Conservatives or the laissez-faire of the Social Libertarians; and if I have erred, I can at least say this -- I do look to the Bible Alone, which is (I should think) a good discipline for us all.
best, OP