I approached this audio book with "open ears" as it were, and a notepad. I was not going to allow an ad hominem fallacy to override what may be valid reasoning. I jotted down many of the points he makes and looked them up later, using a variety of resources. He has a tendency to distort the truth, and sometimes his historical facts are incorrect (case in point: his example with Insoll is factually wrong, historically on a number of items). There is also a large amount of what, to be fair, is really a kind of ignorance: he doesn't know that (for example) the taxation of software is complicated because legislators and even the general public, do not really understand how it is written or distributed. The point being that laws are often complex, not to confuse, but because the issues involved are complex. As Adam Smith made clear it is "division and specialization of labor" that drives the wealth of nations and this is precisely what makes the modern world complex. He dismisses these notions and naysayers as "idiots", taking on a voice that is as much Homer Simpson as it is Huckleberry Hound. This is unfair, and inaccurate as his "idiot" views are not well-reasoned nor are they the views of his detractors. Instead, he fashions a straw man of a simpleton progressive that is not accurate: his position of argument is weak because he is not arguing any real points. At the end, this is pure polemics and is primarily entertainment, don't be fooled. It would be useful for humanity and for his fans, if instead they had an intellect bordering on Noam Chomsky levels of discourse, but the National Review crowd (as much as I may disagree with them) is not in charge of Conservatives anymore. Instead, populist humorists like Beck serve to build the foundation of ignorance that is being used to argue against progressivism.
Report Inappropriate Content