As was mentioned in the article, you do not kill someone to show that murder is bad, but you do defend yourself when you are attacked.

I have a slight clarification/elaboration, not all defenses against an aggressors result the same.
Yes you do defend yourself with aggression when attacked, but what Amelia here is talking about is the institutionalized aggression of the state. There is a big difference between a common thief who steals $1000 from you and an IRS agent who takes $1000 worth of taxes from you.
The former knows what he is doing is wrong(well in most cases), its shown by the fact that he runs and hides after he steals from you, but latter doesn’t know or think that he is doing anything wrong, he isn’t even really taking the money for himself, he deposits it in the state treasury, he goes back to his house and continues living his life, in fact if other members of the state aggress against him, he readily abides by them(a thief doesn’t like to be stolen from him).

The thief and the murderer Amelia is talking about above are the people who don’t really think that they are doing anything wrong, so telling them that they are doing wrong, by committing the same aggression against the others, is just wrong and futile in itself.

This is the same reason why Joe Stack failed in achieving what he really wanted to achieve(he killed one person but he would have been much more powerful if he hadn’t killed anyone, or even better not committed any violence at all). You cannot commit violence to expose the violence of your enemy(esp. not when you want to change them). Take a look at Al Queda, whether they really want to expose America as an empire or not, they have failed massively and only fed American empire by committing 9/11 attacks.

Similarly American govt fails in establishing democracies and peace in all the countries(at least not without having decades long occupations) by supporting dictators like Saudi King, and installing puppet regimes in various countries.

Can you ever be a President who manages to show freedom to the people? Can you be a Rapist who manages to teach people virtues of consensual sex(you could be a reformed rapist, but you cannot continue to rape to teach people against rape)?

Even though you could change the system somehow with a violent rebellion, you just sow the seeds of more violence.

That is where I come in along with the liberty movement, to fight the system with the same aggression that it fights against us, within the political system as a self defense mechanism. The battle itself will ultimately be lost, but just as King Leonidas and his Spartans held off the overwhelming hordes at the gates, so we will fight long enough to get you through to give you a chance to build a better system through freedom and markets, before we get crushed.

The problem isn’t whether or not the battle is won or lost, but more about how much of a long term seeds can you sow.
The Bolsheviks of Soviet Russia realized something, they can violently overthrow the Czar, and establish a system they would like to see, and everybody would be really excited to work upon it, but soon the next generation comes along which hasn’t seen the fight and the trouble to which Bolsheviks went to, so they tend to be very disenchanted about Socialism, and soon there is a need of another revolution to overthrow the new corrupt regime. So they came up with the idea that(or was it Mao I don’t know, but he adopted it) that Socialism is all about perpetual revolution.

The problem is no matter how small of a size you bring down the state to, as long as state would exist, it will have a major pressure on it to grow in size. This pressure or tendency exists for a reason. The reason why state always wants to grow because a state which does not grow becomes ineffective. Lets say you think that the only job of state is to provide milk to the people(and absolutely no other job), and that’s what a small state should do, you don’t really want the state to act like any other milk corporation(making profits etc) you want milk to be equally provided to everyone, now how will the state do its job without ceasing property from other individuals. If it tries to provide milk on profit and loss then we don’t really need the state. If it tries to provide milk to everyone it will be soon out of money, so it needs to take taxes.
Now what will state do when taxes being charged aren’t sufficient to cover the cost(which will happen sooner or later as the population increases). You have to either:
a) Raise Taxes and supply everyone with milk
b) Don’t raise taxes and let people go without milk.

How long would people tolerate a small ineffective state if it continues to not provide milk to many of its people?

Replace milk here with justice, roads, and defense, contrary to what most American minarchists would like to believe, America will always need more money to spend on its protection(as a small govt nation or as a free colony) because of its prosperity.

If the crime in the society increases because the people who pay less taxes, get involved in more risky behavior, in a free society they will have to bear more and more cost of their defense, but in a small limited government society the burden will be bore by the rest of the people. Without increasing the size of the govt you will be unable to provide security to every individual.

And that is the reason why we got income taxes, civil war, New Deal, and every government program since then, because people can only so long choose a smaller ineffective government over the lure of a larger (temporarily)effective govt.

I am trying to revise Gandhian philosophy, and the conclusion I am coming to is that Gandhi really mastered the art of fighting an enemy which stands on the cloud of righteousness(like the government).
Was Gandhi a Libertarian

Well the reality is that those who advocate taking control of the system from within, is doing so as a self-defense mechanism. As was mentioned in the article, you do not kill someone to show that murder is bad, but you do defend yourself when you are attacked. For all of the violence and aggression that our government has committed over the centuries, it is still a bastion of the most free large scale system that has existed. While any system of violence will ultimately fail when the people stand up to these transgressions, the fall ultimately only initiates when the crisis is at its apex and the consequences usually lead to even more violence through rebellion.

The real problem lies both in apathy and knowledge. To achieve your peaceful method of changing the system from outside, you can only lead by example and initiating the concepts from which can lead to the understanding of property rights and the alternatives to a monopoly system that the masses were taught is the only way to achieve stability and security.

But even the attempt to start moving towards an independent, individual self-regulating system will be met with aggression and resistance from the state. That is where I come in along with the liberty movement, to fight the system with the same aggression that it fights against us, within the political system as a self defense mechanism. The battle itself will ultimately be lost, but just as King Leonidas and his Spartans held off the overwhelming hordes at the gates, so we will fight long enough to get you through to give you a chance to build a better system through freedom and markets, before we get crushed. Our fight within the political system is to motivate others to show there is an alternative called liberty, and that they can achieve it on their own. While we know we will fall when the state falls, maybe we can hold back the hordes long enough for the revolution to occur peacefully lead by example by the actions you are doing versus the current cyclical path of mankind of violent revolution.