THREAD:

Serious question: what is the desideratum behind glorification of markets?

Let's grant that they maximize user preference, resource distribution efficiency, ease of investment in innovation, & ultimately increase wealth & comfort.

Why is this a good thing?

What is the assumption behind the idea these outcomes are a net positive?

What if being less comfortable, having less opportunity for upward mobility, & being denied the ability to gratify personal desires, especially those of individual preference, is actually better?

Maximized individual preference dissolves truly rewarding social bonds to family, Church, the moral law, & the polis.

Comfort & wealth for society at large are values at odds with glory & greatness, which require having little regard for your own hypothetical preference.

You disdain your theoretical preference because you desire to perform your duties in an excellent manner & to be above mean things like wealth & individual gratification.

Not saying comfort & wealth are bad, but it is better to be physically poor but rich in character.

And, obviously, a society based on the efficiency of the market and maximal mobility of persons and maximal satisfaction of personal preference does not value character or even think it exists. It doesn't value duty, family, obligation, nor does it think that these even exist.

The only thing such a society values is physical comfort and subjective desire being met. That's it.

Even social conservatism is treated as simply being permitted to have private views on sexual matters, too. But individualists would never permit common mores enshrined in law.

You see this same attitude in rhetoric about war, especially Boomers discussing WW2:

"War is hell, son. Look at the butchery and human misery of that evil war. Anybody who ever glorifies war is a fool."

What is the assumption behind this? It comes from the same values.

The basic conviction of most Americans is that glory & pomp are a cheap lie pushed by rich men to trick you into dying for them. Your life is yours to lead as you see fit, and the social contract of the US means we only fight in the way that minimizes casualties as much as...

...absolutely possible, avoid most wars unless there is broad general consensus that it is a just cause (humanitarianism is the only thing that Americans agree on here), etc.

Within that entire belief system is an attachment to this life and to one's own private happiness.

This is why we so seldom see great men achieve truly great things, we have no great conquerors, most of our architecture and way of life is second rate and sanitized, mass-produced, more the appearance of the thing than the genuine article, denatured.

Patton saw war up close. He loved it. He smacked some soldiers who were in the field hospital because of "battle fatigue," taking beds from the actually injured. British commandos from public schools also flourished in that war. A postwar psychological study found them to be off.

They as a group did not have the humanitarian social values of the general mass of people. They tended to be what many today would call "sociopaths," but they lived succesful lives, fought for their country, & had families. So why do we pathologize this if it isn't actually bad?

They instead believed in glory, in the contest between men, and in daring and honor. They saw little appeal to the life of ordinary comfort. Because of this general attitude being normative in the sample pool, these men achieved great things that lesser men could and would not.