I think free-market libertarianism is flawed, for traditional economic reasons, as well as the fact that it I think it would lead to a contradictory result: deregulation and increased "free" market (whatever that means) control would lead to increased power for the wealthy elite and corporations, and utimately less freedom (read: libertarian ideals) for the majority of people in the world.
On the other hand, that would probably cause me to not vote for Ron Paul...
But I've definitely heard the end-game argument. Since free-market capitalism became an economic reality (ironically legislated into existence), "left-wingers" have been preventing the collapse of such a ridiculously destructive economic system by introducing legislation to protect people from its destructiveness.
I think I'd have to be in a community that I thought could remain relatively self-sufficient for a long time before I would start voting or working towards the end game, instead of voting to try to prevent excesses of the "free" market ideology.
This is why many have argued that the state is merely an arm of capital. I am not certain I agree entirely with that sentiment, but I do believe that the Democrats and Republicans are both "Wall Street" parties; not unlike the Conservatives and Liberals.
I suppose in the 'States it could be argued that many Republicans have absolute faith in the laissez-faire market - believing that individual rationality will translate into a societal common good. Whereas Democrats believe this to an extent, but lean more on the side of Capitalism with a "human face". With respect to both, there is an underlying belief that individual rationality, largely "proven" on marginalist economic principles, all in society will prosper.
This leaves one in a difficult predicament, like you alluded to. If someone, like myself, rejects neoclassical economics and all their predictive powers (such as an increase in the standard of living over time), what are they to do? Vote for the party which seemingly has more concern for social programs and so on but will also continue to prop up a failed ideology? Or does one vote for the absolute ideologues who have the ability to make life, in the short term, much worse off for the masses? It's an interesting question which I'm not sure I know the answer to.
There's nothing wrong with the American system per se, but it can't remain viable in the face of the morally tainted economic and social locust horde of a generation known as the Baby Boomers.
Nothing's truly getting fixed until these decadent entitlement junkies fade away.
How is it you can blame the baby boomers? Before them there was a great depression arguably pulled out because of war. Following that there was the crisis of capital accumulation in the 1970s in the United States; American companies were becoming less competitive and productive compared with their Japanese, German and SE Asian counterparts. The baby boomers were born during the beginning of America's "Golden Age", but make no mistake, they were not responsible for it's end.
If the richest ones and the corporations paid their fair share of taxes, a lot of what's wrong would be fixed.
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." Wright
"Men do make their own history, but they do not make it as they please, nor under conditions of their own choosing, but rather under circumstances which they find before them, under given and imposed conditions." Marx
"Sell a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man how to fish, you ruin a wonderful business opportunity." Marx
"I have more respect for a man who lets me know where he stands, even if he's wrong, than the one who comes up like an angel and is nothing but a devil." Malcolm X