I really did need to know in order to avoid semantic quibbling.
Inferential is the psychological act of discovering implications. I don’t know what you’re asking.
The way you use the term “value-free” yes. Not in terms of Putnam. I needed to know what you mean before I could answer this question and to avoid answering it the way Putnam would.
No. I’m not. You can’t switch paradigms and expect the same answer. I mean I could pull out quotes of Mises saying “evil” this, or “wrong” that, or “good” this. So Mises was a religious fanatic in his economic books? Certainly not, but I’ve taken the time to know what these different paradigms mean. It’s why you need to know what the other person means before you assume. Again, you’re letting the name convolute the actual meaning. You have demonstrated nothing but that throughout this current discussion. Why not take a moment to know what is meant instead of assuming? It’s ok at first, but to repeat the same demonstration continually is not helping this become fruitful. It’s the same exact meaningful underlying event that happened in the discussion in the other thread in reference to socialist theories and debating them. This isn’t to be taken lightly. This isn’t a state of affairs that is quick and easy. Do not under-estimate the philosophical debate at hand, and all that is involved especially when at times the starting points on both sides appear to be further than nearer. Esuric wrote an excellent post concerning this same exact underlying meaning. It is especially significant here. In essence, Rothbard is using the term “should” different than you are interpreting it. He is referring to it in a praxeologic way.