One aim of Hunt's book is to examine the normative views of Nietzsche on their own, separate from their metaphysical import. Hunt succeeds in this, which helps to integrate the study of Nietzsche into the academic specialty of ethics. Hunt also believes that Nietzsche was not inimical to philosophical argumentation, but chose to omit such argumentation in order to force readers to come up with their own arguments for or against Nietzsche's views. Hunt helpfully builds toward discussing the compatibility of exploitation with Nietzsche's account of virtue. He argues affirmatively, but construes this as the strong pursuing virtue while living on a welfare system funded by the economic activity of the many.
Hunt seems to think that what is wrong with fascist terror is primarily economic exploitation.
This is similar to Alan White's suggestion, although White approaches the problem of exploitation less from the issue of virtue than from meaningfulness, the key to which White finds in the doctrine of the eternal recurrence interpreted as a psychological, not cosmological, hypothesis. What is recurring and non-linear about this is that since I cannot lose my past, what is created each moment is, in part, a resurrection of my past. White believes that exploitation is incompatible with the real Nietzsche, because the despot is a dogmatist who sets down one life for all to live, and that this violates the open-endedness essential to Nietzsche's view of meaningfulness. He is clearly right about some despots. I am not optimistic, however, that White's Nietzsche could condemn a despot who thinks that he is choosing only for himself, and who fully accepts that if others choose differently, they are free to overpower him.