You win. Greatest quote of the thread.

I never watched the news in my cushy 80s bedroom.

Libertarians tend to get into trouble when they feel rhetorically compelled to deny that such things as community exist or have meaning. (I blame Ayn Rand.) But libertarianism is a philosophy of government, not a philosophy of life. If your kids are smoking crack, you don't tell them that's their choice as autonomous individuals. You just don't want the government acting in loco parentis, especially parentis of 44-year-olds.

One of the hallmarks of free societies is that there is more diversity in community life and unexpected new forms of community. We live in a relatively free society, and many people choose to make economic arrangements that are not driven by profit. Some people donate to charities, give away money, tithe, establish nonprofits, quit high-paying investment-banking careers to become teachers, poets, or priests. In a more free (and more prosperous) society, it seems to me likely that this sort of activity will continue. If you want to start a voluntary commune, that's your business.

The existence of community (and the acknowledgement of its importance) does not necessitate the adoption of "collectivist" political forms such as socialism or fascism (variations on the same theme). I expect that, as we become a more liberal society (which we are doing and will continue to do) things like church and family and other forms of community will actually increase in importance rather than recede.

...sorry, i forgot what this was about, until I realized that you won.

congrats, winner. boy did you tell me....

I don't know if anyone's mentioned this yet - I'm having trouble getting through the "libertarian" debate portion of the letters - but a good source of possible Olbermann bias might be found at "oblbermann Watch" (http://olbermannwatch.com/).

I say "might" because I can't stand the site or its lame excuse for watchdoggery and can't be bothered to even argue with the dolts who populate their comments section. Watch its 5 minute "gaff" video on Olbermann's debte coverage and you'll get what I mean. Troll or Spam them a bit (they're closet Bill-O fans who aren't very good at hiding the fact that the only reason). Do it for freedom!

Mona asks:

@Paul R.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

Who has the duty to uphold these rights, and how shall that dut(ies) be enforced?

Wikipedia answers:

The document is laid out in the civil law tradition, including a preamble followed by thirty articles. It was conceived as a statement of objectives to be followed by governments. Generally, international lawyers believe that the Declaration forms part of customary international law and is a powerful tool in applying diplomatic and moral pressure to governments that violate any of its articles. The 1968 United Nations International Conference on Human Rights decided it "constitutes an obligation for the members of the international community" to all persons. The declaration has served as the foundation for the original two legally-binding UN human rights covenants, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It continues to be widely cited by academics, advocates, and constitutional courts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Structure_and_legal_implications

"collectivist" political forms such as socialism or fascism (variations on the same theme)

Now, that's the kind of over-simplification that upsets non-Libertarian liberatarians. Socialism includes a wide swath of policies that include the existence of collective interests. Fascism places collective interests above those of the individual - it's much more similar to Soviet Communism than socialism in general.

Furthermore, your model is unstable. If liberalism tends to the extreme libertarian, where the individual becomes completely legally atomated, the church may reassert itself. But we've seen some of the forms that it reasserts itself - with fundamentalism. Without a legal framework to contain these structures, they either die or become virulent.

The conservative/libertarian viewpoint is always an oversimplification at the end of the day. No one wants "forced collectivization" in general; but that doesn't mean that the collectives don't need to have a legal framework to work in. They will always be there - if the state doesn't recognize it, if we don't manage collective entities via democracy, you'll end up with much more tyrannical collective entities emerging.

Even though a fully atomized society does look strangely robotic.

The false assertion that Brit Hume sometimes functions in a non-ideological way, but that Keith Olbermann is never non-ideological, is seen within our media culture as so obviously true that it's not even worth debating.

(And what's the evidence? Olbermann has been making commentaries that Democrats like and that Republicans don't like. Therefore, Olbermann must be partisan. Nevermind that, back in the 90s, Olbermann was angering Democrats and warming the hearts of Republicans with his anti-Clinton items.)

shawnv seems to agree that our media inhabit a worldview so warped that they can't function properly, yet for some reason shawnv claims to agree with those who say that this subject isn't worthy of discussion.

An uninformed and misinformed electorate ain't no big whoop.

What the heck is shawnv's point, then? Why is he/she wasting his/her time here?

I'm all for legal frameworks. In fact, I think we should have as many and as varied legal frameworks as the market will sustain (that is, as many as people want). Law and order are services and, like other services, can be generated cooperatively and voluntarily (which is what we mean when we say "by the market") and in fact will probably operate more effectively when generated that way.

Democracy, far from being a brake on extremism, normally requires great big brake of its own. (Our Constitution is a good example.) If you think democracy and oppressive religious extremism or other odious tribalisms are anything other than allies, spend some time in Turkey or Pakistan.

Sic Semper Omnibus.

Bravo!