We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I need to read this, but many of the points made don't make much sense to me.
The idea that unjust discrimination gets worse, not better doesn't hold up for me. I'd have to see his evidence, but I simply don't see that. If anything, that could be true in parochial, relatively centralized, societies. In broader, decentralized, societies, the need to trade reduces the impact of unjust discrimination.
I'd also reject his notion that a God that is 'good' should be questioned for allowing evil to exist. It stands to reason that without evil, we cannot know what 'good' is or means. A 'good' God allows His creations to choose their own path, and hence should naturally allow evil.
If God didn't allow evil, and we lived in a Utopia, the whole point of good or evil, of choice and progress, and in fact 'nature' itself, becomes irrelevant and meaningless.
There were several other points I'd debate, but until I read the book it's just me spitballing.