She can't deal with irrationality that's more powerful than her. That's her limit.
So in order to defeat them she has to become crazier than they are?
Sounds like the anarchist versus Ron Paul minarchist dilemma.
Whatchoo talkin' 'bout KBCraig?!
Though I'll mention that Ron Paul and the general topic of minarchism has steadily lost its appeal to me over the last year. Why try to just minimize tyranny for the next decade or so? Why not try to end tyranny for all time? In practice, a little bit of government tends to be like a little bit of pregnancy or a little bit of botulism in food. It gets big, and in a hurry. And that holds true for within-the-system gradualism as well. One or a few high-minded minarchists might be able to pare government down for awhile, resisting the temptations of near ultimate power. But in that way government is like cancer. It has this annoying tendency to relapse.
The only way I can see gradualism having a chance at this point in my life (rather than waiting for inevitable collapse and chaos and rebuilding from the rubble) is for people to start treating government like it is a business and go into private competition with it for all of its services and power. Sick of incompetent, irrational, abusive police? Start a general-contract security company. Sick of corrupt courts? Start your own arbitration firm. Sick of unbacked playmoney that's manipulated by governments on a whim and inflated out of any psychotic delusion of value? Start making "medallions" out of precious metals. Sick of gridlock in your city? Start up the venture capital exploration for private roads to bypass it. You don't get rid of government by using government. You get rid of government by rendering it irrelevant.