No, you're describing people doing things they'd rather do than the work it takes to educate themselves on the process. I'm busy; I'm pressed for time. I can do it. Everyone else can, too. It, after all, affects their daily lives.
But they don't want to.
Tell me: what's your workable, practical solution for motivating enough people to give enough time and passion about the political process such that their awareness would override the two party system, entrenched lobbyists and mass propaganda funded in the range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars (and even more than that once _all_ limits on money in politics are rescinded)?
No, it can; you simply don't want it to.
But twice, you've said the government will have to "divorce" itself from "law." No idea what you mean by this, but if you mean criminal law enforcement, that's not something I'm even talking about. It's one of the silly things people bring up when they try to argue against libertarians. No one -- no one -- is talking about shutting down law enforcement or the courts.
No one said a thing about the "wholesale destruction of government." You should probably learn what libertarian philosophy is before you speak against it.
It cannot happen in the foreseeable future because, as stated, there simply isn't the political or popular will to effect these reversions/devolutions. If you can provide me with data to the contrary I would be happy to change my perspective on the matter.
Second, by divorce itself from the creation and enforcement of law, I mean precisely that. You may not argue for it specifically, but the fact is that the ability to fashion and enact law clearly has substantial economic ramifications which in turn means that in order to prevent that power from incentivizing the subversion of government, you would either have to eliminate or severely curtail its ability to draft law _or_ eliminate or severely curtail the ability of private actors to subvert the government. The decision for me is a rather obvious one.
I am unfortunately very familiar with the tenants of the Libertarian philosophy; the only iteration that has ever made an iota of sense is the one that advocates for the minimum government necessary, but that is of course highly subjective.
I don't have a clue what you think you mean by this. Go ask 50, 100, 500, people if they, using these words, "support the wholesale elimination of government subcontracting"; all of them will stare at you blankly. This is some canard you've pretty much made up wholesale. No one cares. Whatever you mean by it.
I.e. government contracts that provide employment for tens of millions via various industries and infrastructure. I'm sure you'd find broad support against wasteful pork barrel spending, myself included, but that is not what I am referring to; there is government spending on such things that yields clear material benefits (the internet for example, infrastructure spending in general, etc).
There was never a "wild west" of such things. Besides, you said it can't happen, and even here, you admit it did.
Yes, there was indeed a wild west where you had literal snake oil salesmen and people pushing radium, cocaine and moonshine as miracle cures when drugs and medical supplies for example, were completely unregulated. Never is a long time, but can reversion to such a backwards state occur in the foreseeable future? Absolutely not. The support factually is not there.
But you're STILL arguing from the basis of what people want. Do you understand that you're doing this? I don't see that you do.
Yes, because people clearly do _not_ want mass deregulation and a government that cannot make or enforce laws.
You're arguing "we must give the government vast power in order to keep power from falling to a small group of elite." Try thinking about that for more than five minutes.
No, quite contrary to your strawman, I'm arguing we institute laws that prevent a small group of elite from suborning democratic governments which put stringent limits on lobbying and campaign finance, and reduce the dependency of political parties on private money; laws that have been shown to work in the rest of the first world.
