Ama gi, I understand your point all too well. I have part of a secessionist movement since 1992 and with time I came to believe that in the modern worldonly Libertarians, as much as they are a bit too theoretical in their approach and sometimes a little too uncompromising (though I understand this point well), have fully grasped the basis for peaceful coexistance and economic prosperity.
I have often discussed with my associates what should be done to further our cause, particulay in face of large, government-backed "particularist"(1) movements. We have all agreed that information and proper education are essential for growing as a movement. The problem is how to get the message out to the "masses". In religious terms we may say that we are "speaking to converts". Internet has proven invaluable to say the least, since it cut costs so much and allows us to reach so many persons with less effort and money. But there's still a lot to be done. For example we cannot buy 10.000 copies of Rothbard's What Government Did to Our Money? and hand them out for free. As much as it is a superb, clearly written book people would not understand the message: they are willingly kept in utter economic ignorance. We cannot simply go out and say "we need to secede to have modern hospitals with reasonable prices". We would look like those Sunday "preachers" in London's Hyde Park, rightly I may add. We need to explain the basis, step by step. We need to be ready to counteract the usual "needy/sick/starving child" argument. We need to understand that while there's a government in place we, the people, (sorry for the quote but I have quite a passion for the Founding Fathers) need to keep complete control over it. You will probably not agree with me here (no offense is meant) but we are in same position of a person who hire a workman to do a job (in our case, let's say administer justice). If he's incapable, he's trying to cheat us or even worse, we have all the right to send him packing. Try that in the real world and see how far you'll get.
I agree with your argument about Conservatives being in love with law enforcement and the military, totally. Love is something acritical and impulsive and this is the behaviour they usually display. They never stop to think "perhaps two constables are more than enough to keep order in this peaceful corner of the countryside" or "perhaps we have not such powerful enemies threatening to invade us as to justify all those high-tech warplanes the Air Force wants". The important thing is to give more resources to law enforcement agencies (be them manpower, high-tech gadgetry or new powers) and to appear "patriotic" (a once noble, powerful word now utterly without meaning) by buying more weapons and to inferfere in the affairs of people half a world away to show that "we have muscles". But right now perhaps even the word "Conservative" has lost meaning: if relative economic freedom was once a redeeming feature, they now preach the usual economic recipe. More government intervention, more regulations, more controls. And let's not talk about their record in the individual freedoms department, for God's sake.
Note: 1) for "particularist" I mean a person superficially approving of "devoluting" powers to local authorities. Though this all may sound all and well there are two problems with it. First: the old "central" institutions are still there. We merely add more people, recruited locally, to the State apparatus and, even worse, more legislation will pile up. Second: local governments are very bit as out of the citizens' control as the central one. A crooked, unpopular or incompetent "governor" or whatever he is cannot be simply sent home. An unpopular law cannot be repealled by a popular referendum.
Yes, it's time for the Dr Goebbels show!