Larken isn't a descendant of those respected Economic thinkers (Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Murphy).

Larken is, at his best, a descendant of Thoreau and Spooner(where I believe he's as correct as Spooner was in Spooner's urging of an armed defense of John Brown), and Konkinist/Watnerian political/technological relinquishment(where I believe he's very incorrect as well as demonstrably stupid, ignorant of social network effects, and counter-productive to the cause of voluntaryism). Larken is totally unfamiliar with the best attempts at placing voluntaryist, "radical libertarian," or "abolitionist" candidates on the ballot (and pursuing their election), and almost totally unfamiliar with other existing libertarian political strategies(ie: state nullification, jury organization, I & R, and the long History of the prior as they relate synergistically to civil disobedience).

He's seemingly unaware of Spooner's commitment to "greatest good" outcomes. (Spooner supported the campaigns of abolitionists running for office, as well as for a positive "anti-slavery" conception of the U.S. Constitution, though he self-contradictorily opposed women's suffrage with a series of arguments that apply more to "unlimited majoritarianism" or "limited suffrage without jury trials" than suffrage in its proper context within liberal democracy. All one needs to do is ask whether Spooner would have sided with Lucy Burns against the police power. Of course he would have! ...Because at that point in time, a flaw with anti-liberty "governance" had won sufficient attention to make the moral issue clear that "it was undeniably wrong to deny women access to the decision-making apparatus of government that was being forcibly applied to them.")

Rose brings nothing to the table in the domain of strategy, except a willingness to say "I'm more radical than you are" while totally misrepresenting serious critiques of his position, and battering them down in straw man form.

Reality itself doesn't fit into the anarchist mold. Government exists. It can be made less or more coercive and involuntary by how it is interacted with.

Civil disobedience is one means of interaction. Electoral organization (candidate and ballot measure) is another. Jury nullification of law is another. Exposure of state crimes(the commonplace "stick") and state heroism(the uncommon "carrot") is another.

To be effective, all of the prior tactics must reach large demographics. Because "anarchism" doesn't map to the worldview of "statist" actors (and neither does the use of the term "statist" as a pejorative), all "anarchist" communications are vastly less effective than voluntaryist minarchist communications, by default (all other variables being equal).

Voluntaryist minarchy: The apparatus of a state (a police/court/military system subject to control of a vote of all who are subjected to the police/court/military system) exists. That apparatus is voluntarily-financed. Voters, whether they paid into the system or not, get to vote to prioritize the system's expenditure of money (pot-smokers get to vote that pot-smoking is not a crime, and should not be treated as a crime, regardless of whether they paid taxes or not).

Advocating a position of "voluntaryist minarchy" accomplishes many things that anarchists inherently cannot accomplish:

1. It defeats the charge that anarchists are "just too lazy to participate in the system to get what they want."
2. It defeats the charge that "anarchists would have simply been able to vote to abolish the position of overseer" if they had only participated. (Something that has regularly happened in reality, despite the agorist counter-claims.)
3. It defeats the charge that only statists are "serious" about shaping reality: After all, votes frequently take place, and statists frequently win those votes.
4. It discourages the current near-total ignorance of political technology among "those-now-calling-themselves-anarchists" (voluntaryists).
5. It encourages a discussion of what a moral vote is. For example: Voting for McAfee to abolish tyrannical government programs is not the same level of morality as voting for Gary Johnson to prolong those government programs and legitimize them with the libertarian label. Voting for those who advocate the abolition of government programs does, in fact, move us closer to abolishing them. It gives us greater tools to pursue their abolition, even if we lose the election (because then the position is at least recorded permanently as an option, an option which those reviewing the election in the future can take note of).
6. It defeats the argument of the "power-vacuum," an argument even Thoreau and Milgram sympathized with, and had no answer for.
7. It defeats scare-mongering that people like John Wayne Gacy would simply be able to "run wild" with no chance of being arrested if they simply "kept moving." (Ie: If you want to destroy the most evil 99% of the state, don't waste your time, energy, and effort demanding support for the abolition of the 1% of the state that even many abolitionists view as being benevolent. That's just ineffectual strategy.)
8. It defeats the view that voluntaryists are "all-or-nothing" people who are incapable of rational prioritization.

Most social change is, in fact, incremental. Those claiming to be anarchists wish to violate inherent laws of human primate social organization, by claiming a label that is an end-state that has no incremental means of achievement, given existing levels of social comprehension.

The idea that voting cannot result in a "more voluntaryist" (or even "more anarchist") society is very stupid.

If voting is rigged, that is something that can be discovered to even further delegitimize the existing, illegitimate state. However, remaining completely aloof from the state makes it impossible to discover vote-rigging. One must participate, in order to have a chance at uncovering such trickery.

If you smoke marijuana would you rather live in Colorado prior to its legalization(huge risk of being attacked and imprisoned by police) or after its legalization (very slight risk of being attacked and imprisoned by police)?

The legalization of marijuana was achieved by incremental votes (first LLEP Denver, then statewide legalization) that each reduced the power of government to violate individual rights. Each reduction was a significant improvement, and a significant step in the direction of "voluntaryism." Each actual step toward voluntaryism can then offer huge explanatory power to "hide-bound pragmatists" for whom theoretical "far-future" goals (like "anarchy") hold no discernible meaning.

Civil disobedience is legitimate. Voting and organizing not guilty verdicts makes civil disobedience more effective than it otherwise would be.

It's moral to vote for anti-slavery candidates. Today's anti-slavery candidates are called "voluntaryist minarchists" or "libertarians." The claim that voting is immoral is very stupid. The establishment does not want libertarians to vote, so they encourage this stupidity. Many, if not most, libertarians who advocate political relinquishment are likely government plants.

The proof of an idea is in the result of the idea. Organization of the jury combined with political organization has often resulted in increasingly libertarian societies, in the short-term and long-term arcs of human governance. Increasingly, humanity strives toward self-governance, with a minority of sociopaths continually demanding an organized response from organized empaths.

That those minority sociopaths have corrupted and seized control of our current sub-optimally-designed system says nothing about the long-term results humanity is capable of, if we smarten up.