And I am not sure how much of this can really be countered.

We can get get a computer system that works (what Mr Romney failed to do – and the buck does stop with the man who did nothing but campaign from 2006 onwards), but the rest of this stuff?

Slipping in political messages into, harmless seeming, cultural stuff?

It is just not our way – it is the way of the so called “noble” lie (of Plato and other collectivist deceivers).

“It will have to become our way Paul”.

Perhaps – but times are changing.

Things are going to get big and obvious – and that is going to happen real soon.

http://politicalhat.com/2013/02/21/from-technical-ecstasy-to-i-can-haz-socializm-a-stand-alone-complex/

is it the “spreading” that is to be effective; or,

is it to conduct the spreading in such a fashion that the ideas will be effective?

To both facets, a prospective answer might lie in the techniques used to establish AOL in its initial days. That is, widescale distribution of a free DVD, in targeted areas initially.

Rather than communicating detailed arguments to those with the time and inclination to read libertarian books, which boils down to preaching to the converted, we need to communicate very simple arguments for the rationally disinterested. Unless we can counter the endless stream of simplistic arguments propounding the alleged benefits of state intervention everywhere we are whistling in the wind.
Whilst a better educated elite would be of benefit to libertarianism, it will be useless until it translates into popular opinion.

Well said Pat. Except for: Whilst a better educated elite would be of benefit to libertarianism

In what way? The one thing libertarianism should be is pragmatic. The last thing it needs is a bunch of theoretical libertarians sitting round assessing the number of angels can waltz on pinheads. There’s a lot can be learned from socialists, communists, fascists. Big State champions of all denominations. The propagation of simple messages to inspire ordinary folk to rally to the cause. Why adopt their prime failing. The endless navel gazing. The theoretical claptrap that never survives contact with reality.. Why do you need a libertarian intelligentsia? What’s it’s purpose? What’s wrong with just giving people the opportunity to work out their own destinies & let them get on with it? That’s the point, isn’t it?

Many of those works could be made into movies. Even the rather poor screen adaption of Starship Troopers (which morphed into something of a statist apology) still contains its libertarian roots if you look carefully. A better choice would be Heinlein’s “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”, in which the libertarian message is so strong it would be difficult to completely corrupt. So perhaps what we should be doing is trying to find someone to make more libertarian-themed science fiction movies. The books are already there.

And don’t forget the TV series “Fireflly”. It doesn’t get much more libertarian than that (although, to my knowledge, Joss Whedon isn’t a libertarian).

Athur Latham Perry’s work is not available there. He was pre Hayekian on the “exchange economy.” I’ll check some other sources, mebbe some at Princeton.

Liberty Fund has published the 20 Vol set of the works of Buchanan in print;9 of which are available at OLL.

You can read Turgot’s principal work at the OLL over at libertyfund.org.

It is the 1898 translation rather than the earlier translation by Thomas jefferson.

Simply go to the site, find the “Online Library of Liberty” in the left margin, click on that then find “By Authors” in the left margin, click. On the authors page (begins with “A”) click on T at the top tabs. Next scroll down to Turgot. You too can join Paul Marks (and his team) and TJ in the appreciation of Turgot – several formats available.