I think you can respect the authority of a professional without this type of attack. How do you know the person you're responding to isn't a tenured Professor of Economics somewhere? To respond to an article on the internet, do we all need to present our credentials?
Second, wtf?! At no point does the person you're responding to say they would let a baby starve to death. Period. They respect the idea of trying to deduce an ethical framework from first principles, but then very clearly disagree with the logically deducted conclusions. Whether it's because the framework is based on incomplete or false principles, or there is flawed logic in the process, or whatever, OP clearly does not agree with the framework.
I don't know if you didn't read carefully or what, but you're waaaay off base here.
But it is, if you read about the concept of the "parasite class" the idea that government social programs that try to keep societal poverty at a minimum is a parasite on the productive class (taxpayers.) His use of the word parasite, in relation to starving children is a dog whistle coded to say, "No one wants these people to starve but because taxes are a theft of that imposes on my liberty then they should be starved for the greater good of the economy." It is the implication of his statement, if not the intent. As for asking for his credentials, that's because Austrian/Anarcho capitalism is often quackery of the highest order espoused by people who are not economists, and often part of that "cult of anti-intellectualism" that Asimov is oft quoted to say is so intertwined into American society.
Who, exactly, mentioned the "parasite class"? Not davvolun. Not kriro. Not the article. Who? The Ethics of Liberty?
You seem to be ascribing to davvolun or kriro positions that they did not take, by association with some other thing that you say is a dog whistle for something else. You then state that children starving is the implication of these statements... that the people you're arguing with didn't say and, by my reading, don't support.
Maybe you're yelling at the wrong people, for the wrong reasons?
Are we both reading the same comment from kirro where he calls a starving baby "basically a parasite." Because "parasite" is a very loaded word in Austrian Economics/Anarcho-Capitalism.
Edit: This is the problem that I have with people that espouse Austrian Economics. Either you have a very shallow understanding of its philosophical system or you are being deliberately ignorant of its deficiencies. If you expand out its propositions to its ultimate conclusions it basically requires the genocide of the poverty class, or as they like to call it "the parasite class," in order to work reasonably.
> Do I think that letting a baby starve to death because it is basically a parasite is morally desirable: no.
I read that as kirro rejecting the idea, not endorsing it. If it's not rejecting the idea of "parasite", it definitely is a rejection of the implications of the idea. That is, kirro is not attempting to dog whistle. kirro is in fact explicitly rejecting the dog whistle implications.
No, you can't get away with that, he used very specific phrasing, this sentence:
> Do I think that letting a baby starve to death because it is basically a parasite is morally desirable: no.
Is very different from this sentence:
> Do I think that letting a baby starve to death is morally desirable: no.
The unessential clause in this statement is, "because it is basically a parasite."
Stating it this way allows him to affirm that he thinks starving babies are a parasite on society while also signaling that he is virtuous enough to think its death is an overall negative. What is not stated, rather implied is the but, the but that belongs between the sentence:
> Do I think that letting a baby starve to death because it is basically a parasite is morally desirable: no.
And the sentence:
> Do I find the idea of trying to deduce an entire ethical framework from first principles fascinating and the way it is done interesting: yes
Basically stating: Should starving babies die? No, but, we should consider the entire ethical framework of economics from first principles that maybe requires that these starving babies die so that people are not robbed of their liberty by the taxation that subsidizes the starving babies.
The absurdity is that you defend it by exclaiming, "Those exact words are never stated!" No they are implied, I said they are implied since the beginning. Do you need a dictionary definition of what implication is in order to understand my argument? To understand his argument? To understand exactly how diseased of a philosophy AnCap is? Because that is part of the problem with AnCap, is that it implies much but states little. The implication is that modern principled society is flawed and we should return to a feudal state where the wealthy get to piss on all the plebeians because who fucking cares about peons.
> Do I think that letting a baby starve to death because it is basically a parasite is morally desirable: no.
I read that as saying that as using their wording, not as agreeing with their viewpoint.
> Do I find the idea of trying to deduce an entire ethical framework from first principles fascinating and the way it is done interesting: yes
I read that as saying that the the attempt was interesting, in an intellectual way, not saying that we should consider the resulting ethical framework at all. I read it as rejecting the resulting ethical framework in the previous quote.
Can I prove that my reading is right and yours is wrong? No. But I do note that HN guidelines require interpreting others' words charitably.
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.
AnCap doesn't say that babies should be eliminated, just like it doesn't say that poverty should be eliminated. It just say babies born to poverty shouldn't receive an subsidized help from the government because taxes are theft. Which is saying the same thing as let the fuckers die.
You say potato, I say potahto. The end result is the same, and not really relevant to my point that I really don't think anyone (in this thread) is arguing for Austrian economic theory, nor do I think anyone is threatening anyone here.
