[gyom]

The word "dishonest" comes with a baggage of connotations. Most people aren't going to read the book and they'll misunderstand the purpose.

To give an example : as much as I think that "The Selfish Gene" is an awesome title, I feel like I have to defend the choice of words whenever I recommend the book. It doesn't really convey the meaning correctly. It means the right thing if you've read the book; otherwise it's misleading.

That's what I think will happen with the term "dishonest minority".

[CWuestefeld]

The problem with the Dawkins title is that there are two ways to parse it. The correct (imho) way is to read it as a declaration that genes as a class are selfish. It is easily (indeed, I'd say more easily) parsed as an introduction to a gene that codes for the trait of selfishness.

Whatever faults you might have with Schneier's title, I don't think you can say that there are multiple ways to parse it.

[gyom]

I agree that these are two ways to parse "The Selfish Gene" and the first one that you listed is more accurate, but what I don't like about the title is that is sounds a bit like an excuse that someone would use.

"Hey, that's just the way my genes made me : I'm selfish, okay, but that's, like, genetics, survival of the fittest so it's all fine and I don't have to feel bad about it ..."

The bad thing about the "Dishonest Minority" title is that is sounds like he's referring to a bunch of freeloaders who are abusing the system and ruining it for every honest tax-payer. From reading his excerpt, we know that it's not what he's saying at all. I like the shock value of using "Dishonest Minority", but sometimes book with titles like that nuance it by having a subtitle that goes like "How we all benefit from them" or something like that.