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.