Right on, Ian.

[LTKoblinsky]

I clicked into the 'Listen Live' stream sometime during the day Saturday and landed in a conversation where a lady was calling FTL out on always ragging on the coppers (from the little I heard of her). Ian's response was spot on: (paraphrasing) "I'm not saying cops don't do good things; its just that when a police officer does something bad, they can't be held accountable in this system." He then goes on to say that being able to withhold payment would go a long way toward accountability. I think this is spot on and that you guys should echo this sentiment a little more loudly to temper your stance a bit. This way, the average radio listener is less likely to think you're just radical, probably-violent kooks. 

[MacFall]

If a system fails to address one single instance of abuse, then that system is flawed, and it needs to be changed. If the system does not allow itself to be changed, then the whole thing is rotten and needs to be gotten rid of entirely. And the system called "the police" fails to address abuse constantly.

You can't blame it on "a few bad apples" when the barrel has a corrupting influence on its contents.

[LTKoblinsky]

Bah, you're missing the point entirely.

[MacFall]

No, I got your point - it has to be presented palatably for normal people. I don't think there's a better way to do that than to say the problem is with the system rather than the people in it.

[LTKoblinsky]

No, I got your point - it has to be presented palatably for normal people. I don't think there's a better way to do that than to say the problem is with the system rather than the people in it.

He then goes on to say that being able to withhold payment would go a long way toward accountability.

Well, I think this addresses the system as the problem...

[Peppermint Pig]

In all circumstances, I think the point is to 'do something' if you think there is a problem. IF you believe in political solutions, then 'do something' in that venue. Ian has argued, from his personal experiences, that you might get burnt out doing the political thing as a means of changing the system. In the role of Radio Host, it helps to find out if a caller has a solution or is taking an action if they consider something to be a problem. Mark and Ian each have their own ways of walking a disagreeable caller through potential factors contributing to incidents of violence, which highlights their point about systemic problems and eventually sinks in on listeners. Ian just so happens to be more iconoclastic and ready to offend sensibilities than Mark. I think there is a time and place to do so.

The libertarian ethos includes the pursuit of more liberty no matter the present conditions, but to do so in consideration of the reality and not indifferent towards it. It is definitely a challenge to translate one's ideals into a message that most people will accept if you cannot find some common principles. I think it helps that you actively hint to your audience that you are engaged in the use of persuasion over force and that it is acceptable to disagree without resorting to violence. It takes experience to develop the skills and tactics to diffuse hostility and get people to appreciate where you're coming from....

Especially for civil disobedience and defending the actions of individuals who oppose unjust laws: Maintain a dialog to disambiguate the whole 'freedom activist' vs 'martyr' confusion. The people who commit to civil disobedience make a calculated risk for the ultimate goal of more individual liberty: Martyrs or people broken by the system tend to elect for extremes of violent response or violent outcome to a violent system and tend to act out of desperation as opposed to looking to the future.