A small detail Teachout doesn't mention is that "Civilisation" was funded by the British taxpayer, meaning it was a product of the socialism WSJ readers despise so much.
May a grocery-store-meat-consumer, who is aware of the cruel treatment of livestock, not be opposed to the methods by which his sustenance originated? Would you criticize him (as a hypocrite?) for advocating change so that in the future, hopefully, good things will have more ethical origins rather than having "the ends justify the means"?
I just came up with that. Usually people say, "The ends justify the means." But I've never known of someone to take it the other way. Thinking about it that way though, it seems that is precisely what we do with Capitalism. We know that greed is bad and leads to bad things, but we justify those ends because the alternative means, that is, a bit of loss of individualism and sacrifice of public property is, by capitalists, considered a severe punishment to the self.
So we say things like, "Bankers destroying the economy is okay, because we were more free until it happened." We say, "Environmental destruction is okay, because only a socialist world could prevent it." We say, "Big SUVs and houses and consumerism are good, because the government shouldn't interfere in people's personal decisions."
But the end product of all that is a less habitable planet and less happy place for future generations -- and not only future generations, but these generations in the future.
Sauce for the goose and all that.