To a Libertarian less government is good government, but I doubt anyone of substance in the party believes that upon winning the Presidency a Libertarian President will simply abolish the US Government. The fact of the matter is that a potential Libertarian President would have to conduct the role using the structures in place, such as Congress and the States, and anyone involved in politics knows this.
So a Lib POTUS would govern with a Libertarian bent; balanced budgets, not expanding government and contracting it where they can and thinking about other Lib stuff but isn't going to create an anarchist state within 4 years of assuming the Presidency. But like all Presidents the office is constrained by the checks and balances and a Lib POTUS will be bound by these in any event.
In that case a Perot/Lib alliance for 92 could drag the party out of the ranks of fringe organisation into a contender for major office, perhaps a balancing role in state and federal legislatures because of Perot's resources and success.
(1) If all the Libertarians were interested in was backing a candidate who might get them more votes, they would have supported John Anderson in 1980 (he was in double digits in the polls for a long time) or for that matter Ralph Nader in 2000 (with whom the Libertarians actually did have a few things in common, in terms of attacking "crony capitalism"..).
(2) "Balanced budgets?" Yes, Perot wanted to balance the budget--but to do so very largely by *raising taxes.* http://articles.latimes.com/1992-10-17/news/mn-93_1_business-taxes Do I have to tell you what the Libertarians would think of that idea?
(3) Perot wanted to make government more efficient. This is *not* a Libertarian idea. On the contrary, I once heard Milton Friedman say something to the effect of "thank goodness the government is so inefficient--if it were efficient, we'd have no freedom left at all!" I can't find that exact quote online but I do notice where he says " "An efficient governmental organization and not an inefficient one is almost surely the greater threat to a free society." http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/friedman-on-stability-of-freedom
Once again: Yes, the Libertarians have nominated presidential candidates who were not "pure" libertarians. But they have had to be at least libertarian-*ish.* Perot was not even that.