My detailed comments and Tyler's have already been registered at the site.
Here's a suggestion that Dana probably won't take (I already offered it once): why not start with a genuine attempt to understand the libertarian philosophy from the perspective of the zero-aggression/no force or fraud principle that is one of the few principles held by virtually all libertarians? If you can't take the time to prove you understand that well enough to critique it rationally, then you can't really make a case that you have any understanding of modern libertarian philosophy.
But then, understanding Libertarianism isn't actually the point of this series, is it, Dana?
What you've really decided to do is to unmask libertarians as irrational fetishists....
Let me ask you, Dana, in all candor, if you are being as diligently honest in your attempt to portray my belief system as you credited me when I wrote I like Dana, but here's why I won't be a Social Democrat in February 2008, and to which you responded:
Bravo! You got it. That's what I believe mostly. I have just a few quibbles here & there, but you are so much on target that to mention them would be to cavil.