How did you come to the conclusion that HN is majority pro-capitalist? Did you look at the comment threads on political articles? Recently there's been tons of

How did you come to the conclusion that HN is majority pro-capitalist? Did you look at the comment threads on political articles? Recently there's been tons of favorable discussion about: - the "right to repair" (I.e. regulators forcing a ban on non-repairable products) - basic income (I.e wealth redistribution, to people who don't even need it) - EU fines on FB buying Whatsapp (I.e. regulators enforcing vague laws, that, if interpreted consistently, would lead to a ban on all B2C acquisitions (obviously they're not intended to be enforced consistently)) - EU fining Google for entering the online shopping market(I.e. regulators forcing a company to modify what they display on their website) - net neutrality (I.e regulators controlling the pricing model of ISPs) Confusing matters is the fact that people have a fuzzy definition of capitalism (especially in the case of net neutrality, which is painted as a way to protect competition, but that's a more philosophical debate). Basically, HN skews overwhelmingly liberal - like most liberals, they are not anti-business, but believe in a regulated free market with high taxes to pay for public services. (I.e. a mixed economy). Likewise, who are these pro-capitalist folk who see the world as a zero-sum game? Care to share some actual quotes from these people? Every pro-capitalist thinker from Adam Smith to von Mises to Ayn Rand makes the case that capitalism is all about non-zero-sum transactions. (If a trade is entirely voluntary, both parties need to benefit or they went enter the trade). The supposed negatives of capitalism (like that in the article) are when one party either refuses to trade with another or exits an existing trade relationship (as Walmart exited the small town). That sucks for the people in the town, but Walmart aren't their slaves. Walmart is free to close their stores as they please and the townspeople are free to set up new retail stores to capture the new market. More fundamentally, every society in the pre-capitalist era was essentially stagnant, with minimal growth, and required slavery to function. In the modern era, a simple glance at East and West Germany, or North and South Korea, makes clear which of capitalism or socialism is zero-sum. The only legitimate debate is between pure capitalism (as in 19th century America) and the mixed economy (as in modern Europe, and modern America, which only differs on the details). But almost no-one argues for pure capitalism. You talk like you're an open-minded rebel yet you seem to have missed the glaring fact that your views are entirely mainstream, on HN and elsewhere.