I share your practical concerns about anarchism; that's why I'm not an anarchist myself. I'm not convinced that freedom would be sustainable under anarchy even if the starting point was a limited libertarian-oriented government that was then abolished. I'm not sure I agree that anarchism is contradictory, however -- I think what anarchists really object to is the social pretense or myth that when government violates peoples' rights, it's somehow acceptable, or that people somehow *have* consented. At least under anarchy, I believe the thinking goes, initiations of force would be seen as the thuggish actions they really are, rather than perceived as socially legitimate in the way that government is widely perceived to be today.
It's interesting to hear you say there wasn't much momentum in the '70s either. I could be wrong about that; as you say, you were there -- and I wasn't. But my impression has been that this was a time when the party was steadily growing, and that Libertarians were on the whole younger, more optimistic, and more radical.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))