Defending Private Property, Avoiding Virtue-Signals (plus Hayek)

7 August 2016

1/ @adissidentright and others have grumbled about the knee-jerk pro-capitalism of the Right. I say it serves a valuable protective function

2/Partly this comes from being someone who always wants to be v precise, v subtle, about everything. I know the downsides of my own biases!

3/In the first place, staunch defense of capitalism is a primitive version of the core alt-right principle: stop virtue signaling.

4/Is this less clear to red-pilled ppl? You think you’re SO far right, your bona fides is clear. But it’s not necessarily clear to normies.

5/Step back, consider 4 issues often conflated: free mkts vs planned, privately owned vs public, open vs closed econ, consumerism vs ascetic

6/THEN, past basic issues of overarching economic structure, you have distinct questions about social welfare, paternalism, cronyism, etc…

7/Now, it is standard for liberals that when they discuss economics, they do not distinguish between any of these issues. Why would they?

8/To them it’s just virtue-signalling. When they say they are anti-capitalism, they mean they’re against “all that kind of stuff”. Careless.

9/If you aren’t virtue signaling against capitalism, then you don’t need to trigger anyone’s detectors: just be v specific about one issue.

10/If you clarify that you are very concerned about the consumerist malaise, for example, you’ll communicate your ideas more successfully.

11/Here is Hayek’s classic defense of free markets against communist central planning: 

12/Hayek’s target – old dogma that capitalism was “chaotic”, “disorderly” and that deliberate planning could produce MORE stuff – seems dead

13/But every day, leftists propose ideas which, when you scratch the surface presentation, are just lazy versions of this zombie dogma!

14/If you never read Hayek, read him. If you have, read him

again. Venezuela just re-instituted serfdom. The fight for markets continues.