Hi, Ricardo. Yes, I do have a very good idea regarding that. Although perhaps it's not the one you want to hear, as I don't know exactly what Weltanschauung you're coming from.
You have no chance of succeeding unless you enlighten people as to the inherent nature of existence. And even then, all that you will accomplish is to save people's souls (which is indeed the greatest of achievement, but one which typical error-laden thought-processes of this world place no value on).
The world's elite have hold of nuclear (and biological and chemical) amaments in which to wipe out a large portion of the human race, as well as underground cities to protect themselves from said. There is no chance in a cold hell that they would ever give up their power without thowing a massive world-wide genocidal hissy-fit, the likes of which the world has never seen before. They would far sooner destroy the Earth than to give up their power. One reason for this is because they know that they would have no place in the world to come. According to their own laws and values, they could not escape being stung up from their necks if the masses ever came into their own. Hence, in such a situation whereby they are facing the loss of power, they have nothing whatsoever to lose by destroying the Earth.
At any rate, ruling elites throughout history adore visiting mass death upon the plebeians. It's their little game which makes them feel self-important. It makes them feel what they imagine to be God Incarnate when they can slaughter whom they wish, and however many they wish. It is their literal religion: hence why we see our modern elites surrounding themselves in the trappings of death in an explicitely religious setting (e.g., Bohemian Grove, and the Order of Skull & Bones).
In a very fundamental sense, ruling elites cannot help themselves from murdering, certainly at least insorfar as they seek the obtainment of more power. For obtainment of more power means the loss of liberty of the masses, which necessarily entails the murder of innocents. Indeed, rulership itself necessarily entails murder, for rulership is the attempt to make the masses submit to one's rule, and hence inherently implies a disregard for the life of the masses.
For the foregoing reasons, libertarianism, if it were to start taking hold in a decisive way, would unavoidably entail the slaughter of most of the world's population: for the ruling elite would never give up their rule without visiting the most horrendous mass-death upon the Earth the world has ever seen.
But the good news is that libertarianism is true. It is true in the most fundamental sense imaginable, i.e.: existence itself would not be possible without it. That is not hyperbole in the slightest, but rather is a quite veridical statement.
It seems hard for most to imagine how existence itself could be predicated upon a "mere" political theory (even a veridical political theory, namely, libertarianism). But nevertheless, reality violates almost everyone's "common sense" understanding of the world. Reality is quite unforgiving in this regard, and it shows respect to no title or institution, unless of course they already happen to be in comformance with it, which is utterly rare.
But what physics demonstrates is that there is an ultimate speed-limit, i.e., the speed of light. Hence, if colonization of the universe is to occur (and it must occur if life is to continue), then this necessarily ensures that decentralization in control of resources cannot be avoided.
That is to say, there cannot even in theory be a centralized "universal governament." Indeed, each relativistic spacecraft (massing no more than a kilogram) will be its own automomous unit with its own society. It will not be possible, even in theory, for any member of the originating society to catch up with it. Only during the collapse phase of the universe, trillions upon trillons of years hence, will all points in the universe proceed to converge.
Thus, each autonomous society (and there will be trillions upon trillions of them) will have trillions upon trillions of years of autonomous existence in which to develop their own societies. Those societies which are the most efficient at taking over recources will be the ones which take control over the universe's resources (and veridical economics demonstrates that this will be the freest of economies[1]).
How that relates to libertarianism being inherenty required by existence itself is thus: the end-state of the universe causally brings about the beginning state, i.e., the Big Bang singularity--since in physics it's just as accurate to say that causation goes from future to past events: viz, the principle of least action; and unitarity.
Hence, Ricardo, what you should do is simply inform people concerning all levels of vital truth.
In the short-term view, you and we will lose. But in the long-term, we cannot avoid winning, if we hold on to truth.
Thus, your task should be to warn people of the horrors which are coming, and elucidate the errors which brought it about. We cannot save people's bodies, but we can save people's souls (i.e., the informational content of their minds).
For more on what I spoke of in the above, see:
"God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics," TetrahedronOmega, May 5, 2008 http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=122&mforum=libertyandtruth
-----
Note:
1. One may protest that colonial occupiers have had great success in taking over a great deal of the Earth's landmass. That is true. But that ignores the physics of interstellar colonization. The colonial invaders upon the Earth were able to keep in contact with their home base (even given what we presently regard as great distances). Such cannot be possible with relativistic spacecraft--or indeed any colonizing interstellar spacecraft.
It may be protested further that the interstellar colonizers maintain their expansion at a rate in which to allow communication with each other. But then there exists no enforcement mechanism for this, for those spacecraft which choose to travel faster would be impune. No member of the originating society would be able to catch up with it.
One may object by positing that said spacecraft are intentionally built to have an upper speed limit enough to allow non-crippled spacecraft to catch up with them. But if such spacecraft are to actually colonize, then they must have on board universal constructors, i.e., they must be von Neumann machines, capable of assembling whatever is capable of being assebled (i.e., given that point in universal history).
(Humans, by the way, are universal constructors. That is to say, we are able to construct anything which is capable of being constructed. More accurately: we are able to construct machines which are able to contruct what we desire, of which machines are in turn able to construct the machines in which to construct what we desire even more, and so on, literally ad infinitum. In Austrian economics [i.e., veridical economics], this is called lengthening the structure of production.)
Hence, any such spacecraft must already have the means in which to build a better spacecraft (up to the point of what is physically possible), otherwise they could not be actual colonizers, and hence would be useless for interstellar colonization.