The only point I feel the need to contest is "EY admits he is libertarian". What I remember is EY admitting that he was previously libertarian, then stopped.
Well, and "EY is a high school dropout with no peer reviewed articles", not because it's untrue, but because neither of those is all that important.
The rest is sound criticism, so far as I can tell.
What I remember is EY admitting that he was previously libertarian, then stopped.
Here is a comment (from 2007) about it:
I started my career as a libertarian, and gradually became less political as I realized that (a) my opinions would end up making no difference to policy and (b) I had other fish to fry. My current concern is simply with the rationality of the disputants, not with their issues - I think I have something new to say about rationality.
It could be interpreted as Eliezer no longer being libertarian, but also as Eliezer remaining libertar...
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.