Has anyone else read How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World?

[Rand Marsh]

As those familiar with the LP know, Harry Browne, the author, was the nominee in 1996 and 2000, and passed away from ALS in 2006.
How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World was first published in 1973 (way before I was born lol), and has been updated a few times since then.
It is the classic libertarian self-help book, which I enjoyed reading and I strongly recommend to anyone reading this. For those who have read it, there are a few issues I would like to hear others' thoughts on.

Discussion Points:

• It contains one major logical fallacy about selfishness: it's ok to always put oneself first because "everybody else is doing it". What are some more logically sound ways Browne could have made this point without resorting to a bandwagon, which seems extremely ironic for someone like him to make?
• Browne repeatedly told readers to evade taxes and regulations instead of joining political movements to remove them. Is the former really preferable to the latter when it comes to the consequences of being caught doing such and does not get anywhere with reducing government, and why or why not?
• Browne mentioned in the book that in the process of prioritizing his own self-interest he had completely abandoned his young daughter because he and his then-wife were miserable together. When he updated it decades later, he claimed he and his now adult daughter had eventually re-met and no ill will existed between them years after the fact. Fatherless homes are a big contemporary problem among the younger generations, and if you have read my Vent post from last month, you know I am from a broken family where my parents split when I was a child; I thank God every day my dad didn't give me up like this and I still got to see him some growing up, so even if this story eventually had a happy ending I still take concern with this example of positive selfishness. Should having child offspring be an exception to putting yourself first?
• In one of Browne's updates after his first presidential campaign, he addressed a complaint that it was hypocritical of him to run for president after he had written a book condemning any political action. He defended this by claiming he only ran for education reasons and not with the intention to actually be elected president. Do you agree with him that having done this was consistent with the philosophy he espoused in his book, or do you think this response was a cop-out?
• The book is nearly fifty years old, and government is much bigger now than it was back when it originally came out. Are there any parts that are no longer applicable due to the fact, and any that are much more relevant now because government has grown as well?

If I come up with any other points in the future, I will add them to this thread. Also, if you have not read the book but still have an opinion on one or more of these questions, please still share them.