So let me get this "straight": are you advocating pure amorality as the only means of escaping a kind of "we will enforce what we want to enforce" moral singularity?
It may shock you, but I'm quite content to view the federal Constitution through a purely libertarian lens. But we need to prevent leaky abstractions in the object model. Individual, private citizens should be opaque above the 57 States, and we should offload the non-Enumerated, Progressive aspects of our Federal government.
However, it's highly doubtful that you have the intellectual fortitude to carry the thought through to conclusion, much less the fortitude to support its implementation.

What, precisely, do you think was even semi-conservative about the notion of raping all of the 529 accounts to offer a community college freebie?

Well, truly: a full-on Civil War, itself, would be as welcome as Lincoln's Constitutional freelancing. But I can't go expecting a valid, balanced approach to evaluation from you, now can I?

Well, were this wild hypothetical somehow instantiated, I guess we'd have to start with tracking you down in the real world and just screwing with you for sheer recreation.
As far as "needful" goes, one good approach for starters would be to begin with the overcriminalization problem and just work backward. That is, there is plenty of good thought by sane people in circulation on the topic. It's a going-in position.
What's your next diversion? Do you shoot the messenger? Do you claim that "love is hate, peace is war" and any conservative approach is really just tyranny?

Some of us fetish learning things. Haskell really makes you reconsider things, for all I still haven't accomplished anything non-trivial in it.

What about the historical fact that Lincoln was a Republican?

Sure. Let's enforce all the laws, to the point that we realize that we've tremendous clutter, then set about streamlining them, so that what's on the books is needful, enforceable, reasonable, and minimal.
Such a state would probably optimize the balance between the individual and the group.
Which invites the question: what's your next obfuscation?

I want every programming tool with which I interact to have some special thing that it teaches. What is unique and distinctive about Pascal, the way, say, Perl brought regular expressions to the masses?

I find your interrogative disingenuous. The question is NOT "why do you support local jurisdictions passing laws regulating things. . .such as ammunition clips".
The question is, given laws, why do we tolerate uneven enforcement thereof.
This is a specific example of why I generally assume, as a default, that you are arguing in bad faith, or at least trolling, until proven otherwise.

You have to admire the Left's genius in realizing that there is more political power to be derived from keeping people divided, rather than having them unite under one set of capitalistic Judeo-Christians values.

But don't worry: the GOP is replete with patrician dickheads who will ensure we stay the Greek course and eschew an real reform that could enhance liberty.

Fair points, all. But the answer is that more involvement from the citizenry is the answer. Less involvement has allowed this ruling class, like yeast in an ale, to float to the top of the vat.

Well, he's a practicing Jew, but apparently that wasn't enough to keep Chuck Todd from replacing him at Press the Meat.

My point is in the JE; your troll is 100% your own creative fabrication. [golf clap]