If I say Hitler was clearly a persuasive speaker, does that imply I believe Nazism? Per my understanding, Austrian economics would presumably argue that (1) b

If I say Hitler was clearly a persuasive speaker, does that imply I believe Nazism? Per my understanding, Austrian economics would presumably argue that (1) babies are parasites (2) parasites should be eliminated (3) ergo, babies should be eliminated AnCap CLEARLY comes to the conclusion that babies should not be eliminated, but makes no argument whatsoever on (1) or (2). In other words, if given the presumed premise of Austrian economics, the conclusion is thus flawed. You attributing this intellectual argument to the user as though they were a believer in that school of thought makes no sense to me. This whole conversation is frustrating because I can't find anything notable you've written here which I disagree with other than that you're ascribing AnCap to this point of view. > I also like that pretty much everything is readily available on mises.org. I wish all "schools of thought" would be this forward thinking. "Forward thinking" in terms of making all of their information readily available; not forward thinking in terms of the entire school of thought. And now you're claiming that AnimalMuppet is threatening to report you or get you kicked off HN. No one said that! AnimalMuppet was referencing the guidelines to say, instead of assuming that AnCap would like babies dead, read it assuming that AnCap doesn't want babies dead, and draw your conclusions from there.