On Nannies

A common RW critique of LW egalitarianism is to argue the state should not interfere in personal economic responsibility by promoting things like welfare, infrastructure, incentives, public goods, etc. - all the things that in a mixed economy might rebalance power against accumulated capital.

Their moral claim is this is *illiberal* coercion: both to capital which has earned its right to be free from taxation/regulation, and the worker who has a natural right to be free from coercion.

Both premises are very strange.  The former begins with a notion of capital/property rights that owes no moral debt to society, either because its creation was not dependent on society, or if it was, this is irrelevant for "reasons".  It thus dismisses culpability for any role it had in the creation of inegalitarian outcomes.  Interestingly however, the RW will be the first to crow about this very privatized, unaccountable and unobligated system having indeed created unprecedented growth and prosperity, clearly acknowledging its functional role in economic outcomes.

But the latter is also strange, in that it claims for the worker the "right" to be free from state benefits. Provisions such as healthcare, schools, infrastructure, welfare, etc. will literally be referred to with evocative words like "slavery", "nanny", or "big brother".  Aside from making a functional critique that these programs are inefficient or wasteful (which of course they do) this is a moral claim about the individual.  The RW is claiming that it is virtuous to participate in the economy without state help.

But let's look at an example.  One family is raised by a head of household who grew up wealthy and used that inheritance to feather a family wealth of $1 million. A second family is raised by a head of household who grew up poor and has a wealth of -$40k due to student loans.

Is the first family not less virtuous due to their inheritance?  If the second family gets their loans forgiven by the state, are they less virtuous?

It's very difficult not to see the RW as starting with a premise that egalitarianism itself is wrong, and then backfilling goofy justifications designed to appear more genteel (not a psychopath). Of course, this also explains why explicit bigots - defined by literal antiegalitarianism - are all on the right.  They are simply choosing to not beat around the bush and simply saying what they mean.
 
As for speaking your mind: the genteel RW has always had a hard time when they let the mask slip and people pointed out their bigotry.
​
Because they themselves have bought into their own genteel BS, and thus avoided taking the time to critically analyze their prior assumptions, comfortable instead to sleep on the cushions of their own bad arguments, they are genuinely shocked at the accusation, and will usually fly back with the accusation that no - it's the LW who's the real racist (I mean, c'mon, you guys are *obsessed* with this stuff). Case in point: SCOTUS recent rulings on affirmative action & VRA, where actively redressing racial inequality is racist & not doing so is egalitarian.