I doubt these protestors have the sophistication or the awareness to see through the bullshit and understand what they're actually opposing. Unfortunately, they are likely to be useful idiots, pawns on someone's great chessboard. That's generally the problem when you have blind, stupid, unfocused rage that lacks understanding and a strong sense of constructive purpose.
Thank you, glad someone gets this concept. This is why revolutions fail. Even if a revolution should succeed in overthrowing the institution against which it revolted, and even if the old aristocracy is actually killed off, the fundamental ideas which gave rise to those very institutions, and allowed that very aristocracy to assume such power, are so deeply engrained in the psyches of the revolutionaries that they erect new institutions that share the same systemic flaws that allow the same type of scum to rise to the top. "Hurray, the government is no more! All hail the government!"
This can be seen more regularly, on a smaller scale, by simply observing regular elections. Every four years, the public is presented with a new handful of politicians, all promising to right the ills of the nation, to end the mistakes of the previous politician, and to lead us all to a fanciful utopian future. And every four years, millions go out and vote for one of these politicians, fervently believing that this time it will be different, this time the system will work. Despite all available historical evidence, they believe that by voting in the "right" candidate, all will be remedied. Rarely do they consider that the system itself could be not only flawed, but systemically unworkable, and that by agreeing to participate in the democratic process, they sanction the results of that process. "It's not the system that is flawed, it is the people running it" they think. The same holds true of revolutions. "It's not the concept of sovereign government that is flawed, it is the specific implementation." To use a technical analogy, it's like finding out that WPA is a flawed encryption protocol, and your solution is to switch from a Linksys AP to a DLink.
You do need a government to enforce notions like private property and civil rights and I know of no libertarian who would argue otherwise.
If government is necessary to enforce private property rights, and those rights are essentially contractual arrangements to transfer property from one owner to another, then why is it not necessary to establish a meta-government to enforce the "social contract" which establishes the government? And, of course, the meta-meta-government to enforce the meta-government's social contract. And so on...
In what sense is an institution which systematically violates civil and property rights (civil and property rights, incidentally, are the same thing. Civil rights, also called natural rights, are derived from self-ownership of the individual, the same source as property rights) necessary for the protection of those rights?
And incidentally, there are plenty of libertarians who hold precisely the view that the government is not only not necessary, but actually detrimental to the defense of natural rights. Read a little Murray Rothbard for a prominent and particularly well-reasoned example. The minarchist view is readily summed up as follows: we cannot trust the government with aspects of life such as the production of a stable currency, but we can most certainly trust them with our lives and freedoms. How does that make sense?
"It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God but to create him." -Arthur C. Clarke