I've never posted here before, but I've been a listener of the show for several years and I'd like to throw my two cents in concerning FTL's declining podcast downloads, and FK activism. I don't generally like to criticize for criticism's sake, and I certainly don't want to be mean, or underestimate the value of 'doing', as Ian likes to say. However, I feel that FTL is indeed heading in a really unfortunate direction. I hope the following will be taken as it is meant, that is, as constructive criticism from a non FSP regular listener's perspective.
I currently listen to the show a lot less and turn off the podcast before it is over much more often than I used to. There are two primary reasons for this. First, Ian seems to be becoming quite insular, such that his arguments all orient around a network of catchphrases that only make sense to other libertarians of his particular strain, but leave other listeners befuddled. Saying this like "the state doesn't exist" or "the state is the most successful criminal gang" is not only a) seemingly contradictory, but b) completely inaccessible when it lacks explanation or qualification. Imagine listening to a democrat or republican talk about the nature of politics, and trying to understand them, if you were not already intimately familiar with the structure of assumptions and cultural biases that they were working from. For libertarians, this approach is boring in the same way that hearing a bunch of philosophically ungrounded cliches over and over again would be boring to anyone familiar with them. It is not thought provoking. For non-libertarians, it is boring because it doesn't make any sense within the context of their cultural reality. They are either severely mistranslating what is being said so that they can make sense of it, or they are just registering it as gibberish and moving on. That is a really bad combination of effects, because it puts a shelf life on regular listeners, and bars the attraction of new one's.
The second reason that I have been curtailing my listening is that, in my opinion, the caliber of guest host has declined precipitously. Ian and Mark have a great dynamic together, but it seems as though they have no screening process or standards whatsoever when it comes to choosing the people who will sit in the guest chairs. At this point pretty much all of the regular guests with the wonderful exceptions of Stephanie and Brad come off as bumbling, inarticulate, and imprecise 'thinkers'/speakers. It is hard to listen to someone when it is obvious that they don't even clearly understand what they are trying to say, or when what they are saying is so painfully obvious that it hurts to listen to how difficult it is for them to spit it out. The co-hosts used to be people like Gardner Goldsmith, Dale Everett, and Sam Dodson--thoughtful people who had interesting, unexpected, and unique things to say about issues, even if disagreeable. No more.
The other issue I wanted to touch upon was FK civil disobedience. CD can be an extremely effective means for change, if it is done with a mind for strategy, and if it is backed up by a rigorous intellectual tradition. Ian's point that you can't please everybody is, of course, well taken. However, people who argue that CD must be intelligently employed, such that it is generally persuasive are not suggesting that any activism that doesn't please everyone is inherently bad activism. CD is a form of communication. Its point, as I understand it, is to highlight a meaningful contradiction between two strongly held moral convictions. That is to say, the role of CD, where it concerns the state, is to find an activity that the state either de-facto or de-jure prohibits, but that people believe very strongly should not be prohibited, and then to publicly engage in that activity so that the state will use violence where the people in general believe it has no right to do so. The point is to challenge people's allegiance to the state by appealing to a more strongly held moral conviction, to make them choose one or the other. Of course, CD cuts both ways. This is why just DOING activism without proper forethought and reflection is massively more dangerous and counterproductive to the forward momentum of the ideas of liberty than not doing anything at all, especially when it comes to CD. Since CD is in every instance a pitting of contradictory ideas against one another, it always runs the risk of backfiring, that is, reinforcing people's allegiance to the state, and alienating them from the ideas and issues of liberty. Activism that does not persuade a large enough segment of the population of its righteousness is even ineffectual in promoting liberty to people who would otherwise be quite amenable to it, simply because taking a stand on its behalf is too socially isolating. Also, and this is a side point, it is understandable why FK activism, which seems to value 'doing' over thinking, is so threatening to many other FSP members. Everything you do affects everyone's prospects for achieving liberty positively or negatively, and randomly throwing shit at the wall, hoping that something will stick is extremely disrespectful of that fact.