Don't know about "nefarious", but cryptolibertarianism is extremely common on this forum. People throw out points like that all the time and then (as here) run to semantic arguments when challenged. But the point was the challenge, not the intent.

Is it possible I'm wrong about intent? Sure! But the Endangered Species Act remains a really important law and a seminal moment in US conservation policy. And the fact that no one seems to want to talk about it is... suspicious. So I think I'm probably right. Both about the poster above and you.

But more importantly, I'm right about conservation law, even though no one wants to discuss it.