Has Dave Rubin Found His Intellectual Stride?

“I do want to give Rubin the fairest shake I possibly can. As such, instead of commenting on the book generally, I will look at some of the book’s arguments in detail and break them down…”

April 28th was the day the world was introduced at last to political commentator Dave Rubin’s much-anticipated book. Ambitiously entitled Don’t Burn This Book: Thinking For Yourself in an Age of Unreason, Rubin’s book sets several goals for itself. It is partly an autobiographical account of how Rubin’s own political ideology changed; part of the book is somewhat of a self-help guide for others going through the same experience, and part of it is a defense of what he defines as his new ideology: classical liberalism. His new ideology is conceived of as mainly against the Left. As a general idea for a book, there is nothing wrong with this. In fact, I would argue it is a worthy endeavor. Changing one’s mind is a good thing; it can be a sign of growth. Hilary Putnam, who was arguably one of the greatest minds of the 20th century, was famous for constantly revising his own philosophical theories, often completely abandoning some ideas. Surely, ideological change can be a difficult experience for those undergoing it, so providing some kind of guidance for it is valuable.

The problem, however, is that Rubin is no Putnam. The book, for the most part, reads like a “Greatest Hits” album of conservative clichés. Even the conservative magazine Spectator gave the book a negative review. I do want to give Rubin the fairest shake I possibly can. As such, instead of commenting on the book generally, I will look at some of the book’s arguments in detail and break them down—or, as the radical left social justice warrior I surely am, I might say “unpack them.” Now, there is no way I can do that for the whole book. Entire essays could be written about each individual chapter and about one single paragraph, so I will try to address those points that I see as the most important threads that run through the book. To illustrate what I mean by this, when I began reading, I thought I would devote some attention to Rubin’s naïve realism. (He describes the process of acquiring knowledge as if one can simply look at the world and get an objective, unfiltered picture of it.) I imagined it would be important to mention important debates that philosophers of science have been having for decades about perception, its impact on what we call “facts” and “knowledge,” and the limits of objectivity, among other subject that Rubin simply takes for granted when he writes sentences such as “I want you to get absolutely wasted on facts.” By the middle of the book, however, this no longer seemed to be a priority. Needless  to say, the same thing happened with many other of his arguments. When relevant, I might mention other issues in passing and point in the direction of a more enlightening discussion of it.

If it is not abundantly clear by now, my general impression of the book is mostly negative. That does not mean I disagree with every point that Rubin makes, and it is only fair that I mention some of the aspects that I think he gets right. He makes a fine case for why certain drugs should be decriminalized, while others should remain illegal. I ultimately disagree, and I would argue that most—if not all—drugs should be legal. But his point that some substances have a high potential to go beyond self-harm and harm others is one that can be reasonably discussed. There are a few other points that I agree with, but I will mention one in particular because I think it probably suggests which others of his positions I agree with. Also, some readers might find this choice surprising coming from someone on the Left. I think Rubin’s position is  correct on the now infamous Christian bakery vs. gay wedding cake issue. I would frame it somewhat differently. I would frame it in terms of how we would judge the issue if there were no money involved. No one would think that the baker should be taken to court for refusing to bake the cake if it had been asked as a favor—or if it were an informal sale between two private persons, instead of a formal establishment. I do not think that having a for-profit business changes the moral calculation, as long as it is a privately owned “mom and pop” shop, as opposed to a franchise establishment or owned by a publicly traded company. Small family businesses, especially those directly operated by their owners should not be seen as being different from the owners themselves. The owners themselves would be the ones making the cake. As businesses get larger, however, they increasingly rely on public services, and the responsibility of a single commission or request gets diffused among the many employees. Services like electricity, roads, water, police protection, are provided by the community become essential, and I do think it is legitimate for the community to impose some regulation. In addition, it is no longer required that the Christian owner directly bakes the cake.