Rothbard and also his quoting of the 1830s libertarian abolitionist of slavery William Lloyd Garrison on abolition versus gradualism (“The Ethics of Liberty”):
“As Garrison carefully distinguished: ‘Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend.’ Otherwise, as Garrison trenchantly warned, ‘Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice.’ Gradualism in theory, in fact, totally undercuts the overriding goal of liberty itself; its import, therefore, is not simply strategic but an opposition to the end itself and hence impermissible as any part of a strategy toward liberty. The reason is that once immediate abolitionism is abandoned, then the goal is conceded to take second or third place to other, anti-libertarian considerations, for these considerations are now placed higher than liberty. Thus**,** suppose that the abolitionist of slavery had said: ‘I advocate an end to slavery but only after five years’ time.’ But this would imply that abolition in four or three years’ time, or a fortiori immediately, would be wrong, and that therefore it is better for slavery to be continued a while longer. But this would mean that considerations of justice have been abandoned, and that the goal itself is no longer highest on the abolitionist’s (or libertarian’s) political value-scale. In fact, it would mean that the libertarian advocated the prolongation of crime and injustice.”
I know I’m going to get torn to shreds for saying this on this forum, but I disagree with Rothbard on radicalism. I think internally (privately) you can and should aim for the abolition of government (slavery) immediately but preaching that to a larger audience, one who’s not ready for such radical statements, will only serve to discredit yourself and your ideals. I don’t see it as advocating the prolongation of the state by adopting a more opportunistic approach to “spreading the word”; indeed, a radical approach from the get-go could very well push the people you were trying to educate in the opposite direction.
The foundations have to be in place before any serious movement away from statism can even begin; the seeds have to be planted. Get them thinking. It’s only then that they will be receptive to radical ideas. This isn’t something that can happen overnight, despite how loudly you scream radicalism at them.
I don’t know what country you are from, but do you have a central bank? I know in the U.S. we are looking to abolish the Federal Reserve. People who take that position are abolitionists. We are radical!