Here are three things I've read recently:

- Phil describes how opposition to a citizens' income is based in part upon a "cult of work" - the idea that work is virtuous even if it is mind-numbing and exploitative.

- Kate says that Universal Credit is founded upon a "contempt for people in poverty"

The (highly misleading) idea behind Universal Credit (and its strict in-and-out-of-work jobfinding conditionaility) is that people only need a kick up the backside to get out of poverty. With Universal Credit, those kicks take the form of sanctions threats, constant reminders to find more hours in jobs that already pay almost nothing, and days on meaningless, fruitless, privately-provided "employability" courses. In other words - if you're poor, stop being poor, or else. That's it.

- Jonn notes that some right-wingers profess to love free markets unless they hurt right-wing tabloids - as when a threatened consumer boycott caused Paperchase to withdraw a promotion in the Daily Mail.

There's a common theme here. The link is a recent interview with Corey Robin in Jacobin.

Corey describes how many right-wingers regard the marketplace in the way that they used to regard politics or the battlefield - as an arena where great men reveal their heroic virtues. The successful entrepreneur is a part of an "economic aristocracy", a "maker and breaker of how we do things, and transforms our world". Although this view is associated with Ayn Rand, Corey shows that it is by no means confined to her. A paper by Olivier Fournot supports Corey's point. He shows how bosses present themselves as Hollywood-type heroes.

From this perspective, the otherwise-odd views described by Jonn, Kate and Phil become much more understandable. There should indeed be a "cult of work" because work is the arena in which humans reveal their virtue and worth to others. Contempt for the poor arises because poverty is indeed a moral failing; in not making a living, people demonstrate their lack of worth. And a boycott of the Daily Mail is to be deplored because the poor should not fight back against the heroes who have been a success in the market economy.

As with any good theory, Corey's explains a lot of things that otherwise don't make sense, for example:

- Why there has generally been little opposition on the right to the countless ways in which the economy is rigged in favour of the rich: restrictive intellectual property laws; planning restrictions; regulatory capture; corporate welfare, bank subsidies and so on. From the point of view of free markets, these things are deplorable. Perhaps instead we should regard them as our ancestors regarded honours and grants of land to successful generals - as prizes for revealing heroic virtues.

- Why so many markets that could help spread risk do not in fact exist, or are relatively undeveloped: GDP futures, house price futures, insurance against social care costs and so on. The function of markets is not to allocate risk and resources, but to enable "great men" to make money and so reveal their heroism. This is why so much financial innovation has been downright dangerous rather than of the useful form Robert Shiller proposed.

- Why we defer to successful businessmen. It's because they have revealed leadership skills and virtues. Whether these skills are transferable, or whether business success was just dumb luck is not important. We ask of business leaders what Napoleon asked of generals: I would rather have a general who was lucky than one who was good. It's not just the hard right that does this. Gordon Brown forever praised "courageous" business leaders, and just listen to how the Today programme tends to fawn over them.

- Why so many on the right are relaxed about inequality even though it often arises from market failure. It's because success even in a rigged market is to be applauded. The general who wins a battle is seen as a hero even if the battle wasn't fought on a level field. Why should things be different in other domains in which heroism is revealed.

In these ways, I find Corey's theory illuminating. Maybe we economists have missed an important fact about markets. They are not just technical means for allocating resources. They are also freighted with moral meanings - though of course we cannot agree what these are.