Maybe bringing anarchy into the public discussion as something to consider, instead of something to automatically dismiss and/or be afraid of, is what needs to happen.
We're trying to educate America in the ways of liberty... but we're basically throwing a bunch of different confusing policy issues at them, and they can't see the big picture. The non-aggression principle is that big picture. Even for minarchists, anarchy is the ideal scenario; they just don't think anarchy would work, but value the same non-aggression principles all the same.
When we use the phrase "a Constitutional Republic" that concept is viewed by most relative to the government we have today. Less taxes, less wars, less this, less that, etc. Less of everything is all well and good, but this approach doesn't make it clear the reason for wanting less of everything.
On the other hand, anarchy or voluntaryism makes these principles crystal clear. I can't speak for anybody else here, but the reason I was so excited when I first looking into Ron Paul was because I was able to read between the lines of what he was saying and quickly saw what was at the base of all of his decisions: the non-aggression principle. I didn't know it had a name or that's what it called, but it was his firm belief in NAP that drew my attention and ignited my enthusiasm.
If education is ever going to work, that education will need to have a foundation in non-aggression IMO. It's very difficult to have any kind of meaningful discussion about non-aggression without talking about anarchy/voluntaryism.
