I'm not telling you to believe me, I'm just pointing out that you should believe me, because I'm right.

There;s no appreciable difference between "telling me to do X" and "pointing out I should do X".

Do you not believe in consequentialism? I could provide some arguments for it.

What I mainly believe in is the necessity or arguing for claims. But we seem to have made a little progress there.

It's only irrelevant because his assumption is held as false by lesswrongers.

No it isn't. It is less relevant because it deals mostly with political theory (mind-killer territory and usually avoided on Less Wrong) while his other books cover epistemology, decision theory, and philosophy of science.

Why do we disagree? Are we wrong, or is he?

Firstly, ASU contains Nozick's least developed ethical thought. Secondly, like I said before,

...his ethical theory doesn't really fit neatly into the deontological/consequentialism dichotomy anyway. Arguably, his ethics/political theory amounts to consequentialism with "side-constraints" (that can even be violated in extreme circumstances). It doesn't seem to be any less consequentislist than, say, rule-utilitarianism.

I made this point earlier in the thread here. Is rule-utilitarianism not a kind of consequentialism?

Is he wrong?

I think so, but I also think the Less Wrong ethical doctrine is wrong. At this point non-cognitivism seems more probable than consequentialism (ask me next week and I might not, I am known to go back and forth on the issue).

Why should I read the book of someone who is wrong on such an important matter when there are so many books I could read?

I don't know your preferences, so perhaps you shouldn't. I was merely offering some friendly advice on a course of action that has benefited me. If you are like me in the relevant respects, then you will probably benefit too.