This is an interesting post on the topic of advancing libertarianism in the US. I take this view as the mainstream, libertarian strategy for success (i.e. making the US more libertarian). In short, the strategy boils down to: teach libertarian ideas to people. (Presumably, this will begin to work at some point in the future, even though it has been consistently failing for decades, but I digress.) Here's the essence of the strategy:
I see two objections.
1) This view assumes quite a bit that HBDers will be unwilling to grant. Isn't possible that a giant class of people (perhaps this class will largely overlap with a couple of races) will consistently be losers in a purely free economy? Since IQs are heritable and normally distributed and highly correlated with success, the answer to this question is almost certainly "yes." Isn't it also possible that voting together, consistently could reap such a group very meaningful rewards that may provide them with higher benefits at lower costs than hard work in a free society? I think the answer is "yes" again. In other words, our libertarian is granting that democratic governments act as vote buyers, if we combine this fact with what we know about the distribution of IQ, it's seems entirely plausible that some people could be getting more from government than they would get in a free society.
2) Our author does not question the legitimacy of democracy. He grants that we have government-by-vote-buying and sees no problem with that. Any libertarian victory under such a system of government would be temporary, at best (if it's even possible). If the system is too broken to fix, no victory for an honest policy is possible.