Since my interest is the preservation (re-establishment?) of a representative republic of limited powers, I am concerned that both the Dem Party and the Repub Party are inadequate to sustain a citizenry that has enough independent minded free-thinkers. Established interests in both parties favor porous borders to allow the importation of liberty-illiterates. Dems for the votes, Repubs for the cheap labor. In that respect, they act as a Uni-Party against the Republic.
A Party is needed to defend the representative republic from these ilk. So long as the Libertarian Party aligns on family issues with Dems (it takes a village?), I do not believe it can meet that need. Neither can the Libertarian Party meet that need unless it advocates for effective ways to counter the buying and selling of political favors as if they were commodities for the free market.
The slogan of liberal morals and free trade, as applied in the real world, has simply been inadequate. I don't think there is any more such a thing as free trade than there is free lunch. You can't have free trade with a tiger. And you can't sustain liberal morals with people-farming buzzards.
Whatever counter parties we promote, they need to be inspiring and effective against the Uni-Party. And the Uni-Party is formidably ghastly, amoral, and sub-humanizing.
I agree with monitoring against abusers. But when abusers have organized and harnessed all the powers and institutions of the Leviathan-State, I don't think mere voluntary monitoring can be sufficient to roll it back.
You seem to be equating the familial and social sharing of values and interests with "private bureaucracy"? I don't think that works. I think familial relationships, when not precluded by gov, are more likely to evolve and change to meet new challenges than entrenched legalistic governmental bureaucracies.
You seem also to be equating a citizen's (conserver of liberty's) political activities (voting, letter writing, discussing) with appealing to government. But that appealing often tends towards getting the government to butt out.
When Libertarians roll over to allow or promote the replacement of families with gov regulation for the molding and sexuality of children, that is not a promotion of volunteerism or liberty. It is more like turning children over to be molded to fit an Aldous Huxley promotion.
I think you're ignoring the elephant in the room, which is the stranglehold by the Deep State establishment of "free-trading" oligarchs and corporatists over all the institutions of political persuasion and government. By political contributions, lobbying, revolving doors, entrenched bureaucracy, PC leaders, media mind-molders, and so on. IOW, by trading in politicians and political favors as if they were free-trading in commodities. You can't regain your liberty by ignoring your strangler. I'm not sure if you're merely delusional or a useful agent for the Deep State.
Soros exists. There is no anti-Soros who wields similar power over the establishment. You can't counter something with nothing. What is needed is for the middle class of decent American Conservers of Liberty (not pollyannish Libertarians) to wake up and pressure politicians to get the central gov off the backs of American families and small businesses. No fem-dream of an anti-Soros is going to do that for them for the same reason that Santa Claus does not exist.
Apart from tribalism (which is a kind of State substitute), familial commitment between a man and a woman is the means through which the power of the State or any single individual is kept marginal as succeeding generations are born.
You cannot preserve Individualism to the extent you allow the Central State to make the definitions of marriage and family meaningless, or to the extent you allow the State to infringe on freedom of association.
Too often, the Libertarian idea of loose social mores seems to morph, Orwellian like, into support for detailed re-definitions and regulations by the State to force retraining about fundamental relationships and associations. When the public is forced by the State to recognize and support forms of polyamory and statist molding of children, then Libertarianism should be recognized as having become contradictory in its application to its central tenets.
But then, shallow moral philosophies, like Communism, always become in practice contradictory to their central tenets. That's when statist regulation becomes Orwellian libertarianism.
The memes that facilitate the conservation of liberty and the reduction of the statist footprint have to be defended, or liberty is lost. Those memes revolve more around shared faith, communal family, and cultural fidelity than around governmental regulation. Not every community or culture is fit for liberty.
That's a nice sounding slogan, but it does not work so well when "free market Capitalist-Constitutional party" becomes dog whistling for unbridled corporatist buying and selling of politicians, political favors, and entire governments --- as if they were commodities and the masses were stock for trading. A society or government that fails to develop ways to check against the marketing of the masses as if they were mere sheeple will always lose its representative republic and become mere kabuki.
If sex is not gender then gender is more like make believe than science. But then, all the world's a stage.
It would be interesting were a respected historian/psychologist to do a study relating to how rates of gender dysphoria may have increased as more homes were made without effective fathers and as men began to be more excluded from teaching grade school children. It may shed light on how much gender dysphoria is attributable to nurture and practiced play acting rather than nature or science.
How is it that a child should be entrusted and entitled to make sex change decisions but not to buy a gun? If a child should be entrusted and entitled to consult about making sex change decisions, then should a child be entitled to be groomed by adult teachers or abusers? Is there some kind of scientific metric to measure whether a child is ready?
Libertarian values. IOW, if everyone were fair, then gov would not be needed. Yup, that'll work.*
(*This is not the way the evolution of creatures, societies, and forms actually unfold. When a niche yields an advantage, it will soon enough be exploited. If you do not want that niche to be exploited, then you will fail if you just ignore it. You may hope that people like Soros will be fair, but you will be sorely disappointed if you rely only on hope.)