There are civil libertarians who will swear that they support the diminishing of State power but fail to address the electoral and political systems as a whole which are utilized by the State to blatantly centralize influence.

Accepting those preconditions is the first problem.

Even worse, minarchists, who by definition seek to make fundamental institutional changes to the current system, seem to accept the current monstrosity's political preconditions as the only valid environment to play ball in.

It seems contradictory to me that individuals who should be holding radical viewpoints (American libertarianism was hijacked by Tea Party conservatives, the essence is deeply radical) are so willing to accept voter id, political parties, and representative democracy as helpful...

...institutional systems, when all I can see on a brief analysis of any of these topics is they work to promote hierarchy of political power and further segregation of an individual from his choice. When I look at systems like these and see my compats rely on them in argument...

... all I can see is the defense of unnecessary middle-manning which developed due to the consequences of geographic constraints and/or as obvious funnels where elite power-holders could maintain control and play power-politics over minority demographics.

I do not accept that shifting authority upward promotes individual freedom downward.

American libertarians should not be averse to the meta-political. That is a conservative trait.

We are not conservatives, going back to our first thinkers- the abolitionists, the individualists, the anarchists- we have never sought to play by the rules of the present system.