Reasonable people can definitely disagree on tactic; the contradiction inherent in using the state's process to eliminate the state is not lost on anyone - Adam included (I assume). One could definitely make a good faith argument that it's a waste of time and resources, a la a slave expressing a preference for no master instead of expressing a preference for one of two masters.

All that being said, is there a tactical advantage to the fighting? Adam's goals appear to be the same as Larken's, even if they disagree entirely on method. Does Adam's campaign of political libertarianism detract from the sort of technolibertarianism or personal choice libertarianism that others may embrace to side-step or fight the state?

I haven't seen Adam condemn anyone who uses methods other than his. I guess I'm unclear on the purpose of fighting philosophical although non-tactical allies.