Say you despise gun rights. So, you pass whatever possible restrictions are imaginable. Certain kinds of guns get placed in certain kinds of categories with different legal restrictions. You start placing registration requirements on some of these categories. Using infiltration tactics, you take your battle everywhere you can. Some areas, like NYC, are very easy to make it impossible to own a gun. Gradually, through regulatory creep and bureaucracy you effectively nullify the ability to own a gun.
Meanwhile, libertarians' response is, "ELIMINATE X LAW. JUST WRITE IT OFF THE BOOK." But you never see a gun activist successfully passing a law to, "JUST BAN ALL GUNS," they instead take this creep, Fabian approach.
Now, I know Rothbard wrote about how a Fabian strategy won't work, but I want to point out that what I'm saying is subtly different. I'm NOT saying, "Grant us the right to use guns registration-free every third Tuesday of the month," and count that as an incremental victory. Instead, pass regulations on top of the regulators. Make it so bureaucrats have to pass through three different bodies to possibly deny a gun permit. If a response is not received within 25 days, the permit is to be considered automatically granted.
My basic point is that if increasing regulation increases the cost of doing business, then shouldn't increasing regulation on regulators increase their cost of doing business? Effectively making most regulations dead letters because they become effectively impossible to enforce?
Moreover, it gives certain politicians a more politically viable way out. E.g., if a politician votes against compulsory public schools, he gets labeled as "Being against education," mainly because he's "doing nothing." But if he votes for restrictions against the CPS to go against homeschoolers, he's suddenly "Stopping government overreach."