Who says? The Libertarian Party Statement of Principles clearly denies this by implication. The national platform of the Libertarian Party specifically denies this. While it is true that the United States government has operated as you say at least since the forming of the old House Committee on UnAmerican Activities, that does not make your assumption philosophically accurate. This is fundamental error in your premise.
Another fundamental error is that "quality of life is afforded by the technological advances, not by the political system." While technological advances have immensely improved our quality of life, there is plenty of history to show that political systems have more than equally effected our over all quality of life even more so. Moreover, it was changes and improvements in the political systems, that increased the rate of technology advancements.
Your claim that "feudals" were more free, runs counter to everything I've read in history. Even if we make a peculiar definition for "feudals" (which you did not define), as being only the lords, we will find that their freedom was much less than what a commoner has in a modern nation state. I even go as far as to claim that the Royals did not have the freedom that commoners of today have, even after accounting for the technological differences.
Your suggestion that the overlapping jurisdictions of the Catholic Church law, kings courts and manor law, were a well balanced system is only as true as viewing the total chaos of its lack of continuity, lack of fairness, and uncertainty of outcome, could be called balanced. There is nothing bad that our legislatures or courts have done today that would not have been quite likely and common place in that system, where all pretense to popular involvement in decision making are discarded, and almost all decisions are based on favoritism and power plays.
Now I'm not saying that there were not some golden decades in particular jurisdictions during feudalism. But all those were short lived, rarely ever lasting even two decades. Feudalism brought order and security to a chaos that was unendurable, much the same as the Taliban brought security and order to the chaos of Afghanistan. Beyond that, there is little else worthy of consideration that came out of it, relates to the politics of human relations.
Woops. There is a concept of sovereign and protected classes of people, that I think is worthy of consideration in as far as defining the rights of children, handicapped, the aged, and anyone else desiring trade decision making rights for certain kinds of security that may be afforded a protected class.
Very good for them, but we are not arguing over the LP platform. We are arguing over policies currently implemented. For the past 500 years loyalty was to the territorially-defined state. The US Constitution mentions just one crime by name and that is treason. And for a good reason, because the way thew system of defense of individual rights and justice is implemented is through the state. One cannot choose to be judged by French laws and live in Spain. HCUAC has not invented anything new. It is just that, for example, the Communist or Taliban sympathizers were prosecuted by our state, under the political system we have there is no better alternative. But the system of collective defense not based on the state monopoly of justuce is also possible, we just don't have it. It is, I think, coming, and elements of feudalism and monarchy will play a central role in it.
Individual procurement of defense on the free market is not possible unless anarchy is implemented and law is separated from the state. I am glad the LP recognizes it, -- if in fact it does.
political systems have more than equally [a]ffected our over all quality of life
Surely as a libertarian you would agree with me that technological progress is a function of the free market, so the political system affects it inasmuch as it supports the free market. But political constraints on the free market were first imposed by the nation-state.
Even if we make a peculiar definition for "feudals" (which you did not define), as being only the lords
I did mention that I did not speak for the serfs which of course were not free, -- although even they had specific rights. All other members of the feudal society -- the lords, and merchants, the crafstmen, the peasant churls, the clergy -- had well defined hereditary rights which could not be taken away legally, and which could be increased if one upgraded his social class. Those rights were unequal. We might consider that a drawback. But they were also immutable, because they were hereditary. That is something we lost.
I suspect that you go by popular history which makes a caricature of feudalism, and rarely is interested in the principles of the feudal society. It tends to play up the violence, the bizarre customs, and the lack of creature comforts. We should be looking beyond those.