A return to private property and freedom of association is necessary for communities to start functioning again. The tenth amendment, it seems to me, ought to apply here as much as anywhere. If states can legalize pot based on it, certainly states can end the anti-discriminatory regimes that do not allow good family formation.
Depending on their ability to execute, the free-state libertarians may get the last laugh (or not, because they might not like what could happen) over the white nationalists. This is because, if the libertarians actually institute liberty, then suddenly white nationalists would have a place to go do what they want. Sure, there'd be pots smoking fun parts of New Hampshire, but there also could be large developments of people who have agreed to live a certain way via freedom of association and private property rights. Thus, there might be large areas where pot is not allowed because the property owners just don't want it on their property.
But anyway, even deeper and perhaps more structural than the tenth amendment, or whatever sort of law one might pass, is the procedure by which laws are ever refered to in the first place. I would suggest something like this: let it be property owners in the county who initiate any investigations- i.e. police are not looking to bust people to make a quota or whatever, and have a process by which property owners could hold hearings on particular police officers and fire them. Of course, it would also be helpful if the county administration felt federal agents coming in and meddling with local affairs was a particularly bad idea worth getting into a conflict over.
The basic idea is this- bad laws don't have to be used, and presumably, the property owners aren't going to use bad laws on themselves. Sure, the Hatfields might rat out the McCoys on something, but the other property owners in a county would likely want to stop that sort of things. Perhaps most importantly, people who want the community to accept behavior, contraband, or even people, that the community doesn't want to accept just shouldn't have any standing because they aren't already existing property owners in the county.
Not that the covenants between property owners as to the way they want to live need extend through an entire community. There could be city blocks- some pot smoking hippy type places, and then maybe a traditional Catholic area two blocks over, or some white nationalist enclave somewhere nearby. Differentiation then occurs. People begin to notice where they want to live, how they want to behave, and where they want their children to grow up. If they can't join a particular group, they can find some property of their own and try to replicate what they perceive to be the healthier model of living.
This is one of the things I found out when I started following some anarchist blogs a while back- some of them didn't respect private property, so their anarchy was a big like a scam, where they wanted to impose their costs on everyone else. Obviously, this happens with all sorts of people, but what I am suggesting here, is, especially in a hypothetical future New Hampshire with freedom project fully implemented, if there were people who intentionally went around trying to violate various norms people agreed to via private property right and freedom of association, then they could make a fair assessment that these people deserved banishment.
Being able to find the troublemakers and expel them- not by resorting to law, mind you, but by noting whether or not the person is capable of understanding and respecting the private property owner and his wishes- would strengthen such a place immensely.