That's just it, though: why advocate an anti-inefficient-government position? Who, precisely, advocates a pro-inefficient-government position? Right, nobody.

That's just it, though: why advocate an anti-inefficient-government position? Who, precisely, advocates a pro-inefficient-government position? Right, nobody. So, instead of advocating anti-inefficient-government, it makes a lot more sense to advocate specific measures that will improve efficiency. That might be cutting programs, but advocate cutting of specific programs, because of that program's inefficiency. Give a concrete reason for it, such as number of dollars spent by the average taxpayer, or an alternative use for that money. Pick a specific measure, not something general like "social security" or "TARP". I sympathize with many libertarian goals, but this generic "anti-inefficient-government" rhetoric doesn't help any of them. Rhetoric is a luxury of mainstream parties. Ross Perot got a significant portion of the votes in many states by hammering on a single issue: the budget deficit. After that, the Clinton administration mysteriously decided that shrinking the deficit was a priority. Which of course didn't exactly last long, but imagine if someone continued to hammer on that with the same fervor throughout Bush's presidency, and into the current administration?