The "politics" list is where it gets interesting. #1 is fine. #2 is OK to a certain extent, but quite naive. On the margin now, government does pose a real risk of creating more externalities than it solves. This is, of course, why I'm always so careful to closely interrogate precisely the nature of the externality on the table. But that's only on the margin that we're currently sitting on. If you consider government vs. no government, I don't think the tables are so decisively turned against the government. The rule of law, property rights, basic infrastructure, basic education, basic security, etc. There is a boatload of stuff where the government's ability to solve externalities far exceeds any negative externalities it may create. That's why we have governments after all. They're an efficient product of an emergent social order. At the margin we're currently sitting on, of course it gets more dicey. But that's what optimization is, isn't it? You do something until the marginal cost starts to exceed the marginal benefit. It makes sense we have to think more carefully about the net benefit of more government than, say, Somalia does. Always be suspicious of corner solutions. Bryan's point on #2 is locally correct. Globally, it is incorrect.
#4 on politics is wrong too I think. If that was the most internally consistent argument, I'd probably be a libertarian. #5 confuses the lack of a state with the presence of freedom - a mistake libertarians make a lot (it's hard to be a libertarian without making this mistake, although many non-libertarians make it too). #6 is good, but I find it interesting he leaves it at Republicans and Democrats only. This is where you see some of his own identity politics creeping in. #9 is incomprehensible. I don't know what he means by that. I'm not sure what perceived difference in station, role, or rights would have lead him to say that... again, I think it's the naivete of his own identity politics that is creeping in here.
Under economics I would personally add "Accounting identities are not behavioral laws", and "Macrofoundations are as important as microfoundations, but neither are strictly necessary if you do the science well", and "Economic calculation relies on incentives, and incentives rely on institutions". Under philosophy I would add "The correspondence theory of truth is not so much wrong as it is a cause of unnecessary consternation and empty speculation", and "Logic is a language for talking about ideas in a rigorous way, it is not evidence". Under politics I would add "Libertarianism is less distinct among political philosophies than it supposes", and "The excesses and problems with democracy are real, but they are not as damning as many suppose; any possible alternative, from fascism on one end to anarchism on the other, solves the excesses of democracy by excessively curtailing human self-government".