I know socialists are mostly too far gone to convince. But if you had to give a socialist or communist one book with the greatest odds of changing the mind of the most open minded among them, what would it be? If there’s a major difference in recommendations for a socialist or communist in your mind, differentiate them.
I'm tempted to say *Unbeatable* (forthcoming 2026 hopefully). But based on actual conversion track records, *Atlas Shrugged* and *For a New Liberty* have the best chance. If they're empirical, then *Socialism: The Failed Idea that Never Dies*.
That’s fair, and interesting. Though I was assuming that Unbeatable was targeted at social democrats and “abundance” liberals rather than socialists.
I think the modern socialist is far too aware of Atlas Shrugged and even Rothbard for them to be convinced by their arguments, even the open-minded ones. There are reasonable objections to some of what they say. So perhaps Unbeatable and The Problem of Political Authority are the correct responses.
Socialists over 25 years old are probably hopeless. Younger ones actually might find Rand or Rothbard persuasive, because they know so little anyway and they're still young enough to rethink the fundamentals.
If you’ve read Charles Murray’s new book, Taking Religion Seriously, what are your thoughts on it? Do you think Murray is appealing to Christians in an effort to repair his legacy with the general public?
It's in my stack, but I haven't read it. I doubt Murray is trying to "repair his legacy." I know him well enough to say that he's proud of his work. More likely, he's willing to take one last hit to his reputation by defending religion despite its low intellectual status.
What can Tokyo and its lesser deregulation but surprising density teach us about how a London or New York might look if governments were to be far more permissible with building and the use/size of those properties?
I seem to remember that you largely unschooled your boys but that you said that you still had a very strong emphasis on math with a more homeschool-like curriculum. I'm just curious why you singled out math for extra care? I assume the transfer of learning results apply to math as well, so wouldn't they just learn math if/when needed?
I'm open to unschooling, but my kids preferred more structure. I recommend pushing math because it's (a) boring for most kids, (b) highly cumulative, so hard to catch up if you fall behind, and (c) crucial for most high-paid jobs.
When we talked last, you seemed to express skepticism of the consensus historical idea that Christianity (both theologically and institutionally) is the primary reason for western moral progress, specifically slavery. Why is that? I recommend the YouTube channel InspiringPhilosophy’s video on the subject. As far as I am aware, it’s the consensus view of historians. https://youtu.be/kA0-21H1TtU?si=ZJbRDPWMTh_Qc2Ne
I'm skeptical of all "sleeper effects." If Christianity is so morally potent, why does it take almost 2000 years before the fight against slavery takes hold? It makes far more sense to give credit to the Enlightenment, which precedes abolitionism by just a few decades. And no, the Enlightenment is not a Christian movement, except in the trivial sense that it was a rationalist challenge to traditional Christianity.
Honestly, I think it makes far more sense to say that Marxism was a Christian heresy, with its irrationalism, obscurantism, contempt for commerce, glorification of the poor, and support for state-imposed orthodoxy.
And something else I forgot to add: if science is so potent, why did it take so long to invent computers? To me, this is an analogous question that misses the point.
Because it took a long time for Christians to be more consistent with their values. With the exception of the first person ever recorded to unequivocally condemn slavery, the church father Gregory of Nyssa, the first abolitionists were devout Christians who used Christian theology to make their arguments in a similar way that Nyssa did. As the video I linked shows, “secular” (though still Christian-influenced) natural rights arguments didn’t convince people. Trust me - these videos are worth your time if you’d like to potentially change your mind!
Regardless, the Enlightenment *was* a result of Christian theology anyway. And like you said about Marxism, was full of Christian heresies.
Yes indeed, Marxism was a Christian “heresy.” Christianity caused the world to care more about the poor than pagans ever did, so Marxism was undoubtedly influenced by Christianity. Though Christians, by reasoning using Christian theology and the Bible, created things like the separation of church and state, the scientific method, etc. so you’re oversimplifying here.
So if it took the Enlightenment or even Greek philosophy centuries to develop into a more consistent libertarianism, does that mean its values were too ambiguous to have such a positive impact? I’m not following you here.
I'd say that neither the Enlightenment nor Greek philosophy "imply" libertarianism. Which is why the vast majority of pro-Enlightenment and pro-Greek philosophy people aren't libertarians.
Also, you just said that the enlightenment lead to the abolition of slavery, yet few of them were abolitionists. So did they not actually lead to the abolition of slavery?
And if saying that they were not consistent libertarians bothers you, my main point was that they helped lead to the creation of libertarianism.
But they clearly influenced people to come up with libertarianism. John Locke being the most obvious one. Freedom of speech, religion, and property rights = libertarianism.
No strong view. Mass incarceration probably helped. I also like the story that cell phones reduced the need for drug dealers to fight over urban locations.
Large connected populations and reasonably free-market policies are both crucial. I suspect Enlightenment ideas were also important. Once you have those, high-IQ people start producing the ideas on which global progress depends so heavily. And of course severe material deprivation stunts IQ, so there's a virtuous spiral, at least until absolute poverty becomes a rounding error.
I know socialists are mostly too far gone to convince. But if you had to give a socialist or communist one book with the greatest odds of changing the mind of the most open minded among them, what would it be? If there’s a major difference in recommendations for a socialist or communist in your mind, differentiate them.
I'm tempted to say *Unbeatable* (forthcoming 2026 hopefully). But based on actual conversion track records, *Atlas Shrugged* and *For a New Liberty* have the best chance. If they're empirical, then *Socialism: The Failed Idea that Never Dies*.
That’s fair, and interesting. Though I was assuming that Unbeatable was targeted at social democrats and “abundance” liberals rather than socialists.
I think the modern socialist is far too aware of Atlas Shrugged and even Rothbard for them to be convinced by their arguments, even the open-minded ones. There are reasonable objections to some of what they say. So perhaps Unbeatable and The Problem of Political Authority are the correct responses.
Socialists over 25 years old are probably hopeless. Younger ones actually might find Rand or Rothbard persuasive, because they know so little anyway and they're still young enough to rethink the fundamentals.
If you’ve read Charles Murray’s new book, Taking Religion Seriously, what are your thoughts on it? Do you think Murray is appealing to Christians in an effort to repair his legacy with the general public?
It's in my stack, but I haven't read it. I doubt Murray is trying to "repair his legacy." I know him well enough to say that he's proud of his work. More likely, he's willing to take one last hit to his reputation by defending religion despite its low intellectual status.
What can Tokyo and its lesser deregulation but surprising density teach us about how a London or New York might look if governments were to be far more permissible with building and the use/size of those properties?
Just the obvious: Less regulation means a lot more and cheaper housing. ;-)
I seem to remember that you largely unschooled your boys but that you said that you still had a very strong emphasis on math with a more homeschool-like curriculum. I'm just curious why you singled out math for extra care? I assume the transfer of learning results apply to math as well, so wouldn't they just learn math if/when needed?
I'm open to unschooling, but my kids preferred more structure. I recommend pushing math because it's (a) boring for most kids, (b) highly cumulative, so hard to catch up if you fall behind, and (c) crucial for most high-paid jobs.
Is there a scenario in which decolonization occurs peacefully and in a manner more consistent with creating free, prosperous, and stable states?
There's always a scenario! Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all fit this mold.
When we talked last, you seemed to express skepticism of the consensus historical idea that Christianity (both theologically and institutionally) is the primary reason for western moral progress, specifically slavery. Why is that? I recommend the YouTube channel InspiringPhilosophy’s video on the subject. As far as I am aware, it’s the consensus view of historians. https://youtu.be/kA0-21H1TtU?si=ZJbRDPWMTh_Qc2Ne
I'm skeptical of all "sleeper effects." If Christianity is so morally potent, why does it take almost 2000 years before the fight against slavery takes hold? It makes far more sense to give credit to the Enlightenment, which precedes abolitionism by just a few decades. And no, the Enlightenment is not a Christian movement, except in the trivial sense that it was a rationalist challenge to traditional Christianity.
Honestly, I think it makes far more sense to say that Marxism was a Christian heresy, with its irrationalism, obscurantism, contempt for commerce, glorification of the poor, and support for state-imposed orthodoxy.
And something else I forgot to add: if science is so potent, why did it take so long to invent computers? To me, this is an analogous question that misses the point.
Because computers require a wide range of basically unrelated empirical discoveries?
But most if not all derived using scientific methods.
Because it took a long time for Christians to be more consistent with their values. With the exception of the first person ever recorded to unequivocally condemn slavery, the church father Gregory of Nyssa, the first abolitionists were devout Christians who used Christian theology to make their arguments in a similar way that Nyssa did. As the video I linked shows, “secular” (though still Christian-influenced) natural rights arguments didn’t convince people. Trust me - these videos are worth your time if you’d like to potentially change your mind!
Regardless, the Enlightenment *was* a result of Christian theology anyway. And like you said about Marxism, was full of Christian heresies.
Yes indeed, Marxism was a Christian “heresy.” Christianity caused the world to care more about the poor than pagans ever did, so Marxism was undoubtedly influenced by Christianity. Though Christians, by reasoning using Christian theology and the Bible, created things like the separation of church and state, the scientific method, etc. so you’re oversimplifying here.
If it takes thousands of years to be "more consistent with your values," then your values are probably highly ambiguous to begin with.
So if it took the Enlightenment or even Greek philosophy centuries to develop into a more consistent libertarianism, does that mean its values were too ambiguous to have such a positive impact? I’m not following you here.
I'd say that neither the Enlightenment nor Greek philosophy "imply" libertarianism. Which is why the vast majority of pro-Enlightenment and pro-Greek philosophy people aren't libertarians.
Also, you just said that the enlightenment lead to the abolition of slavery, yet few of them were abolitionists. So did they not actually lead to the abolition of slavery?
And if saying that they were not consistent libertarians bothers you, my main point was that they helped lead to the creation of libertarianism.
But they clearly influenced people to come up with libertarianism. John Locke being the most obvious one. Freedom of speech, religion, and property rights = libertarianism.
No strong view. Mass incarceration probably helped. I also like the story that cell phones reduced the need for drug dealers to fight over urban locations.
Large connected populations and reasonably free-market policies are both crucial. I suspect Enlightenment ideas were also important. Once you have those, high-IQ people start producing the ideas on which global progress depends so heavily. And of course severe material deprivation stunts IQ, so there's a virtuous spiral, at least until absolute poverty becomes a rounding error.