The "permanent portfolio" content I am considering the idea of "Harry Browne's permanent portfolio". I seen a few versions of this strategy where the different parts consists of funds which in turn have some costs associated with them. 

Then why not just buy one ETF(which only contains the corresponing asset) for each of three parts consisting of government securites and gold and for the last forth just a large stock fund for the stock part?
I hope I understood your question correctly. In case this helps:

1) you can probably cover even the stock part with a combination of just a few ETFs. 

2) traditional funds (as opposed to ETFs) will always be promoted much more aggressively, because their providers earn high fees. ETFs are much less profitable for their providers and are often not promoted at all even if they represent a superior solution. This might explain why you see versions with traditional funds, but not ETFs.

I think you are right in thinking that you can construct a "permanent portfolio" type investment portfolio out of ETFs with a superior cost structure. Probably the best way to do it. Industry players who have a vested interest in traditional portfolio management won't tell you this though.