For example, states hold a limited power to seize property. I'm pretty sure that no one wants states to have an unlimited power to seize property. The states power to kill is similarly curtailed.
One power that that different levels of the government seem to be expanding more and more, is what I like to call 'Special Consideration'. Whenever a city pours huge amounts of money in the form of bonds and tax breaks into a sports stadium for their local team, that's special consideration; it's a financial transfer for a specific private entity that is not automatically available to other private entities. Special consideration can be hugely hugely profitable for the private entity and incentivizes lobbying.
There are two points to keep in mind. Not all special consideration is bad, and not all forms of corruption fall under special consideration(obviously), but I do think that curtailing government's power to grant favors to individual private actors, and thereby distort the market, would decrease the value of lobbying.
Look, there are things that can't be avoided. And most people like to be lead and kept in an illusion of safety. That disgusting fact may actually be what makes us stronger than all other current participants on this planet.
"People need rulers!"
We wouldn't get along.
The old "people won't buy stuff from companies that are dicking them over or killing the envionrment", always conveniently ignores the fact that if one company is behaving badly but getting better profits (exploiting their workers for short term gain, dumping toxic waste into the rivers, etc...), they will ultimately consume any well behaved competitors.
Unfettered markets are pure dog eat dog territory, and frivolities like environmental protection and human rights do not survive. We know what unregulated markets look like, they are cities filled with factories churning out toxic smoke, hospitals full of terminal cancer cases, people dying on the street, and everything else you read about in the Industrial Age. Or go to any factory city in China. They're making tons of shareholder profit and they're dying at the same time.
Libertarians are the worst at not fully thinking through the ramifications of their positions.
All people, whether they work for a massive corporation or within the government, make most of their decisions based on personal self interest. Give corporate entities unfettered power, they will stomp on people. Give government unfettered power, they will stomp on people. It's all about channeling the individual's drive to improve their own life towards the best interest of the collective. A free-market and a government whose sole purpose it is to protect individual rights, is the best way to do it.
I don't believe in unlimited corporate power because people are fallible. I don't believe in unlimited government power because people are fallible.
I think you may not be in line with mainstream libertarians.
Fun fact: the government and the largest corporations are made up of exactly the same thing - people looking out for their self interests. There is nothing more sinister or more benevolent about either of them (in composition).
The government should prevent bad things from happening, but they won't have any framework or enforcement mechanisms for doing so.
What do you think corporate (and other) regulations are for? How do you think they are enforced? You want the government to stop people from dumping poison in a river and killing people and animals hundreds of miles downstream, and do it without an EPA or environmental regulation, not even a definition of what "poison" is, much less written penalties for putting it in the environment uncontrolled. If you don't agree on something and write it down you'll be stuck arguing the details for years and years every time there is a dispute.
"You are poisoning the water and killing people!" "Nope, this stuff isn't that dangerous, it must be one of the hundreds of other factories dumping in this river." "We know your stuff is dangerous!" "I don't see that anywhere on here. I say it's safe. You want to spend the next 10 years in court arguing over this? Because I will, and all of your plantiffs will be dead before the case is over and I'll win by default."
"Simplifying the tax code would remove the government's ability to tax!" <-- analogous to your claim
I'm saying shrink, not eliminate.