I have read that you generally advise that it is not wise to confront the federal government, and on this I agree because they will use it as an excuse to oppress even more. However, why don't you suggest that any government no matter how tyrannical is relies on public support and the only way to discredit any government is by changing the people's mentality? In the end, the government is run by a few hundred maybe thousands of people. The rest of them are mainly followers. Reading Rothbard, Hoppe, Block, DiLorenzo, and even De Soto (if you speak spanish). As La Boetie explains, how do they get that power over you if it's not because we allow it? Hoppe also explains how can 5,000,000 or so entity (the government) can slave and impoverish a society of 300 million? Public opinion.It is correct that I believe that direct confrontation with the government almost never makes sense. As Ron Paul states, the government has more guns, more efficient guns and more personnel to carry out force, than an individual, or group of individuals can muster. The government will use that force whenever it believes it is necessary and where they rank using that force higher than any negative publicity that might come about from such a use of force, for example the developing attack on the Bundy ranch SEE: Sen. Reid on Cattle Battle: "It's not over".
In my view, we, The Austro-Anarchists, need to teach people (aka the masses) that the state is wrong, and based on my own experience, it is easy to prove any person defending the state to be wrong.
Further, almost always in the cases where the masses have been so large in protest that a government has been overthrown, one evil ruling government has been replaced with another.
As for the notion that tyrannical governments only exist because of public support, I have never objected to this theory. However, when you write that "In the end, the government is run by a few hundred maybe thousands of people." This may be true from a absolute number sense, but the full story is much more complex. If it was just a case of getting a few hundred, or perhaps a thousand, people together to run a country, the anarcho-capitalist/limited government advocates certainly have those numbers now, but they aren't going to run anything.
The key remains broad-based support of libertarian principle, i.e. support of the non-aggression principle. It does haven't to be a rigorous, theoretical understanding by the masses but simply a basic belief in NAP. In this sense, libertarian advancement is a marketing problem: Just how do the original thinkers in the libertarian movement, and what Hayek called the second-hand dealers in ideas, advance the libertarian perspective in a manner that it becomes an almost knee-jerk demand of the masses?