lykos makes a perfect point.
And I don’t find this “it’s too difficult for them to accept, so don’t bother” philosophy to be very convincing or very healthy. It is here that I agree with Hoppe, that you need to be uncompromising in theory and ultimate goal. If you expect to get any closer to your goal you can’t be “compromising” on your endgame…essentially giving up and saying “ah that’s a pipedream. That’ll never happen. We might as well just focus on minarchism (or sticking to the Constitution, or whatever other form of statism you think is ‘practical’).”
And while understanding and being able to explain government inefficiency is important and necessary if the message is to be widely accepted, abandoning NAP on the grounds that it leads people to a place they aren’t ready to handle right away is just asinine. People need to be hearing these ideas…if for nothing else than to shock them out of their matrix sleep. People don’t have to be “impressed” by your adherence to principle. They just have to be piqued, or triggered, or otherwise engaged by the principle itself.
I can’t get over how terrible this guy’s logic is. “People won’t see the light right away, so you might as well not tell them the truth and just stick to safe stuff.” What a useless (supposedly) smart guy.
And I hear what you’re saying, Axe, about the difficulty of a principled argument…but there are ways to present it, and there are best methods to go about engaging people. See “Argumentation & spreading the word” here.