I prefer to focus on particular issues. People generally get really hung up on labels and aren’t very philosophical, so I stick to why state policies won’t work or will have really bad side effects.

Recently came accoss this: https://archive.org/details/edward-griffin-the-chasm-collectivism-vs-individualism Good short piece introducing some of the important distinctions.

On the communication piece: It's often a good idea just to bear witness to how you feel and think about a situation without trying to convince anyone about anything. Simple changes of phrasing towards "I can't help but feel that...", "I can see no way around ...", "It makes me sad to see .... because ......" etc.

Instead of trying to convince just try to bear witness as acccurately as you can to what you actually feel and think.

E.g. Instead of declaring that taxation IS theft, you can try "I cannot see taxation as anything other than theft". That way heated arguments about "no it isnt! yes it is!" are avoided.

Q: "what is the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?" A: "about 2 years"

Mark Passio says that the ideal form of government is a blend of anarchy and monarchy: internal monarchy (individual sovereignty) with external anarchy (no rulers); anarchy (an-archon) means -> no ruler -> no master, no slave -> aka freedom;

people's minds are severely diseased; they have to clean up their air, water, food, light sources, and information, go back to the fundamentals, and one day they'll come up with the correct solutions on their own; it is also imperative to lead by example and demonstrate how a proper, righteous way of life is more satisfying and rewarding;

I so much love the options you highlighted: Christians, Education, Healthcare and the State, even though I'm @aPolitical. But talking about Libertarianism, I'm totally confused on that.

Libertarian ideology is a decadent outgrowth of the decadent western civilisation that has dominated global wealth and resources for centuries. The idea of individual 'rights' being more important than the individuals obligations to the group they belong to is something that has developed most strongly in the societies which have come to dominate others cultures and gained wealth and power via imperialism. The individuals in these privileged dominant societies come to expect more and more 'rights' from the state and to take the state and its provisions more and more for granted. This is the beginning of the end for these societies as other competing societies where such a sense of entitlement is not so developed. China is an example of where citizens understand very well the consequences of a weak nation state government- The Opium Wars left China devastated for a century. Only in recent decades has the Chinese state come to respond to the dominance of western civilisation in an effective manner by combining state led economic strategies with the natural entrepreneurship of Chinese people. In contrast decadent Libertarians moan about paying taxes as though the infrastructure and military productive power and power projection of the state is not essential to their individual wealth and security. The nation state and its effective functioning is crucial to the wealth and security of citizens- most even westerners still vaguely understand this. There has never been an enduring wealthy dominant culture develop and sustained without good government playing a crucial role in the process.

I prefer to keep aside to talk only with people who think similar to me, it gives me headache sometimes trying to explain to another person on these issues, people are too lobotomized.

Generally not (hide; don't ruffle feathers; nobody is ever convinced by words...), but recently I've been doing the opposite: live not by lies, do not put up with evil.

Jury is still out on what's better