What would libertarians need to hear, in order to change their minds on supporting libertarianism?
Like any other theory or claim, we must define it, then find a way it can be falsified in order to avoid engaging in “moving the goal post” or confirmation bias.
Libertarianism: The moral philosophy that no person or group of persons have the right to initiate violence of fraud, and just acquisition of property comes from contract/voluntary exchange, original appropriation or proportionate restitution from aggressors.
What makes the state (all governments) illegitimate? It exercises control over resources that its agents never acquired through original appropriation or voluntary exchange, and it does so without the consent of the rightful owners of said resources.
To refute this claim, one must explain either (a) states do not initiate violence, or (b) violence is justified when a group called government does it.
If (a) of (b), they must then explain why states have a monopoly on rights no other group has- Does the Libertarian Institute have a right to ‘collect taxes’ or cage people for victimless crimes via ‘legislation’ they write, or engage in ‘compulsory education of children’?