Exactly. The only thing preventing Trump from being more successful in implementing his ideas is that he's so brash and offensive to people's tastes in character. If Bloomberg can put on a nice mask, he can (and if the past is anything to go by, will) enact much worse than Trump did, and I wouldn't be surprised if mainstream media outlets announce his policies with fanfare.

This is the allure of libertarianism - since a free democracy can't predict the quality of its leaders, representatives, and lobbyists, the government should be given as short a leash as possible to prevent things like a "truly scary authoritarian police state".

Of course, the flip side is that such a government can't accomplish anything positive either.

Comparable to a library of unix programs - would you rather have small tools (/ organiziations) that are limited to a single job - which they are often optimized for - or a single behemoth which tries to do everything, and may not do it very well?

...and now the systemD vitriol makes sense.

The federal government is far more comparable to the first situation than the second. And most of the departments are extremely effective when they have leadership that believes in the mission of the agency.

Michael Lewis' the Fifth Risk highlights this pretty well.

Anarcho-Capitalist libertarianism maybe. They're the ones who want a smaller government at all costs, even if that means creating a power vaccuum for some other (potentially bad) actors to fill.

Maximizing-liberty libertarianism would say that an impartial government is necessary to enforce rights for all citizens, even if that's the right to information to vote efficiently.

Libertarianism just replaces one tyranny with many. A powerful state is replaced by powerful corporations and individuals.