A quote that might help:

“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded— here and there, now and then—are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as ‘bad luck.’” —Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

What's wrong with being not interested in anything but yourself? The same people will tell you that you have to be able to love yourself before you can love other people.

Since man first began to accumulate more goods than they needed for immediate survival, we have faced the problem of who gets to decide what to do with the excess. How to preserve it and accumulate it so that the tribe will thrive.

We've tried hereditary Chiefs and Kings, which works for a while. The people who were in charge when you accumulated the wealth are likely to be able to get more, and genetics does work, at least for a while.

We've tried voting, we pick the person who is supposed to take care of the goods. Unfortunately that tends to get people who are good at getting votes, not those good at taking care of and increasing assets.

Capitalism lets the people who created the wealth decide what to do with it. If they guess right, they get more, if they guess poorly, they lose it. It is the system most able to rapidly move wealth around into the hands of those best able to make it grow.

And we want to make it grow. We want to have plenty.

A good start to a description of capitalism would be the following A.R. quote: "Laissez-Faire capitalism is the only social system based on the recognition of individual rights and, therefore, the only system that bans force from social relationships. By the nature of its basic principles and interests, it is the only system fundamentally opposed to war." That starts off putting capitalism on the correct side of things and leads into all its other virtues.

Great question, Grendol, and you're getting quite a collection of essays here.

OK, here goes mine:

Do they understand the concept of the work ethic? The fable of the ant and the grasshopper? Have they ever heard the simple rule, "You don't work, you don't eat"? Have they heard of the quaint commandment, "Thou shalt not steal"?

Put the shoe on the other foot. Socialists want, by force, to take from some to give to others, preferably to themselves. To justify their rapacious philosophy, they create a myth about the productive members of society becoming rich through some kind of exploitation of the poor, throwing around the spurious term "social justice".

Here's the thing. All living things need to eat or they don't stay alive very long. Each individual being has to expend effort to obtain nourishment to put in their own stomach. But, as Ayn Rand put it, there is no such thing as a collective stomach. And back in prehistory, food was all around and critters just took what they could find or hunt down or take from another. Ever see chickens in the barnyard tugging on the same worm? There was not yet the notion of private property, though you'd better not mess with a lion's kill. What the lion gets belongs to his or her pride. Extended further, in times of scarcity even animals had territorial claims and would chase away intruders.

Speaking of lions, hear the one about democracy being two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner?

Once humans learned to produce food instead of just collect it--agriculture, domestication of animals, food storage, shelter construction--the concept of property rights emerged. That which someone "produces" belongs to that individual, though he may choose to share it with family, kin and tribe. Collaborative hunting provided for sharing the bounty with the group. But be assured that every critter has a notion of "it's mine, don't touch."

And every critter has a hardwired sense of how much effort to put out for expected results. The lioness stops running when she can tell the gazelle is too fast. Expending more energy than the return gained would soon leave the animal starved to death. Without ROI, or profit, life doesn't work.

The premise is that what you put time and energy into obtaining and producing belongs to you. This is the concept of the earned vs. the unearned. As someone earlier remarked, when you have invested a piece of your life into producing a value, it is yours. In more advanced societies you can rent or sell your time, and the money you are paid is a portable, exchangeable piece of your life. Anyone who seeks to TAKE what is yours is in effect stealing a piece of your life, or making you a slave for that length of your time. You, on the other hand, get to decide how to dispose of what is yours, through trade, the only truly socially just formula, and only capitalism provides it.

To understand capitalism in its simplest essence, ask your arguers if they like the idea of Kickstarter or "crowdsourcing". It's a growing trend, and surprise: that's capitalism, investing savings towards making something with the expectation of future profit. If they persist in ascribing greed to others, have them search their own motives. Envy is the root of all evil.

I say, "Socialism has never worked anywhere, and never will. Socialism isn't an economic system; it is an ideology. Capitalism is the only economic system. It is not an ideology - it is simply the way capital markets work. It works not as well as it should when it is plagued by government interference and restraints, combined with 'crony capitalism,' which historically was known as State Socialism."

This is an issue I've been dealing with for years, and I would guess most in this Gulch have also.

I would prefer to write at more length, but am on the road now and only checking into my sanity space (here) when a little time and wi-fi allow. Hopefully the thread will have lewgs and I can add more later.

But mainly, I would say, the best defense is a good simple offense: be prepared to say, and backup, that certain facts that lead them to their negative emotional arguments are simply not true, And then give examples.

One of the earliest and best books I found as a source of correcting "known" but untrue facts is "Capitalism and The Historians", edited by FA Hayek. I read it when I first became interested in Objectivism, as it was recommended in the newsletters.

In fact, as I was raised in a strong Democrat, union household, at that point in time (age 19) I was to some point still the exact type of person you describe: I still had a lot of "emotional arguments lies against Capitalism" embedded in my brain, and while sympathetic to Rand's ideas, as they were powerful and so logically convincing, I still needed to be "deprogrammed" (anyone remember that term?) from those leftover emotional anti-Capitalistic feelings. The book I mentioned, and numerous related fact-filled articles, really helped me.

Counter emotion with facts, as a place to start. It won't stop there, I know...

If I can't convince you that this is not a snarky response, then you are adding emotion.

You cannot counter an emotional argument except by pointing out that it is emotional and therefore invalid in rational discourse.

Not really.
The problem is, as I've said before, you can't argue someone out of something he wasn't argued into.
That is, a rational argument, or proposal, cannot counter a feeling.
You have to convince the person you're talking to of the truth - and truth is not a feeling.

aah, it's late and I'm depressed about this ever-increasing task I've set myself - saving the world. OK, at least saving the western part of the U.S., all the way to the San Andreas fault

I'll try again tomorrow [later today] to come up with something useful.

I find it more productive to promote and defend "free markets" rather than "capitalism":

https://strategiesforliberty.wordpress.c...

Grendol,

It is unfortunate that you can not have a meaningful discussion with one who sees capitalists as their enemy. The war so to speak created by the government against capitalists or capitalism dates back over 100 years so we have a huge number of people who think that we capitalists are their enemy. SO GOOD LUCK.

People that make these arguments, ie... " these people say (that I wish to enslave, that I am incapable of compassion, that I would never give to charity)" are trying to take the unearned moral high ground. If they are "on the fence" about the issue then they might seem unsure about the talking points they are spouting and you may be able to sway them. If they are sure of themselves then they are convinced of their moral superiority and you most likely cannot sway them. The hard part, for me, is telling the difference.

If they are on the fence and worthy of the effort then you Must Not concede the moral high ground. It is not theirs and they have no right to it. Show them why the moral high ground is not theirs. (specific examples here would help my point but I can't think of any right off the top of my head.) This moral high ground is how people convince themselves they are right. When they begin to question their moral position they may start to look at things more realistically. Don't expect immediate results. Nobody likes to be told they are wrong. But if they are worthy of the effort then they will begin thinking.

On the other hand, if they are convinced of their moral superiority, it's probably not worth the effort, unless you have an audience that is "on the fence". Then the same strategy applies. It will be more difficult because the one you are talking to is a believer but, then, he is not really the one you are talking to. Remember, he wants the moral high ground real bad. When you knock him off of it, it could get ugly. But just because it gets ugly doesn't mean you're done. Judge that by your audience. You may have to drive your point home with a sledge hammer( figuratively, of course, although that is tempting sometimes). Your opponent in tears would not necessarily mean you've gone too far. They are arguing from pure emotion anyway. The audience is who you are really talking to.

It also helps to know damn well that you are right. Genuine application of Objectivism helps with that.

Ben Shapiro, in his short book "How to Debate Leftists and Destroy them" says
"The proper response to a charge that you beat your wife is NOT to explain that you don't...it's to point out that throwing around accusations without evidence makes your opponent a piece of garbage.
In the discussion, he calls this "framing your opponent". It's what they do to us {capitalists are selfish/evil/child molesters/haters etc. Since you cannot prove a negative {I am not a nater. really.} you need to attack the use of that sort of argument.

It's a pithy and gritty little book, and I had to read it a couple of times before I understood how I could use it - but it works great and is cheap from Amazon.

In "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal" Ayn Rand
dealt with the attempt to justify capitalism on the
grounds of "the common good". She denounced
this approach. Although it does (when allowed to
operate) achieve "the common good", that was
NOT her justification of it. She said it was justi-
fied on the ground of individual rights. In "The
Virtue of Selfishness", (and elsewhere) she
held that living for oneself did not preclude help-
ing other people, if one could afford it (not
damage oneself or one's values doing it), and
if there was some value in the person helped;
but that it should not be one's primary goal.

I'm months away from finishing a business degree, majoring in entrepreneurship and enterprise development. From the start and right through, they teach you to forget about making money unless you're actually helping people, contributing goods and services of actual value that solve or lessen people's problems.

Every field of endeavour has its exploiters, its cheats, its looters. Marriages have numerous partners who cheat. Charities have numerous staff who embezzle critically-needed funds. But does this discredit marriage, or charity?

First, you need to ask them questions which will indicate they are greedy too (e.g. Do you buy lottery tickets? Do you want a pay raise?). Everyone is. That is the driver for Capitalism. Only when these inherent traits are leveraged to produce overall value can an economy succeed.
Then discuss the individuals who are in charge in socialism. Who are these people. Let the person identify them. Are these people greedy? Of course. This is the inevitable road to totalitarianism.
Then discuss efficiency. Can you demonstrate a government program that is more cost effective than an equivalent private one?

So greed is inherent. In capitalism it is leveraged to drive overall wealth. In socialism it is either attempted to be controlled (voluntary/philanthropy) or ignored (involuntary = forced becomes totalitarianism). One thing that gets socialists thinking is to point out they seek to take things from others at gunpoint, which is essentially what giving power to the government is. They never think about it that way on their own.
The next logic is showing which companies are more successful, those that treat their employees well, or those that abuse them. Companies that abuse employees are invariable on their death throws. This is Ayn's Objectivist version of "philanthropy". Treat people well to achieve more. Such a simple concept, and why people behave in society (misbehave = ostracized = less food. Behave = cooperation = more food)

The thing these liberals fail to consider is that they are being greedy and venal through the collective. They seem to think that it is somehow noble to wish to take from peter to benefit Paul, without stopping to think that they are in fact stealing from peter just the same. It kills me when I hear about someone being murdered and the perp is "discovered " to be not in full possession of his faculties for some reason. [IE crazy or mentally insufficient"] Somehow this means that the victim is somehow less dead. I am sure that this makes the victim feel much better. The same is true in the case of liberals robbing Peter to give to Paul. Peter doesn’t give a rats behind that the thief not stealing the goods for himself......Peter is still out the goods.

If we think about what wealth really is this line of argument is even closer in parallel to the murder example because wealth and money is really a physical manifestation of a part of your life. If you give up 8 hours of you life at a job, your employer will pay you a certain sum of money, you have then sold part of your life. If someone then steals that money, they have just stolen that part of your life. You might say that.."it is only 8 hours, not the whole life"……. to that I would respond that if you murder a 90 year old man, it is still punishable the same amount as if you had killed a 20 year old man.
One final thing....all these generous liberals who talk about re-distributing wealth to the less fortunate. I have always noticed that they always seem to fall in to one of 2 categories. 1. They are in a relatively low tax bracket and are likely to receive some of the wealth transfer. Or 2. They are very well off and either "Have theirs" or have an accountant and a tax strategy that keeps them from paying what the rest of us do!

Try this:

Statists, of whatever stripe, cannot serve the public good. No one can do any good to anyone by means of human sacrifice. When you violate the rights of oe, you violate the rights of all--and a polity of rightless creatures will destroy itself.

Hammer at this point: statism never accomplishes its stated goal. All the things they say capitalism does, statism does. Psychologists call this "projection" -- literally, throwing off your own sins at the other person.

Branden’s “How to communicate political ideas” (an audio lecture) would be a good place to start. Once armed with that, or if in only very short discussion, I use Shermer’s question when he is faced with ideas that are wrong but in which the other person holds a strong belief. He says, “That is interesting. Upon what facts to do you base this?” I add: “I would like to follow up on what you say.”

My experience is this converts a confrontation into a discussion IF the person is not simply posturing in some sort of moral righteousness (unfortunately something for which we Objectivists are well known). If the latter, let him have his stage for a few seconds and excuse yourself from the preaching. You will never change such a person.

Like most good things, capitalism can be hijacked by the power-hungry, who want to control. The objective should be to practice real free market principles, rewarding the productive and providing the goods and services that the consumer desires.

Monopolies and "crony capitalism" impede the benefits of a free market, and should be blocked whenever possible. A real free market thrives on competition, with competitors striving to offer an ever-evolving product or service at a competitive price.

Whenever government presumes to deliver the product or service desired, a market-destroying monopoly is created. When a government seeks to control a market, it diminishes the dynamic force of the consumer that's the driver of that market, by impeding the ability of the providers to respond.

Challenge the liberals to read Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations." Without understanding that, one shouldn't claim to understand capitalism, anymore than someone who hasn't read the works of Marx and Engels can claim to understand Communism.

There are two types of socialists; recognizing which one you are dealing with is the first task. The first type, the sheeple, are mental adolescents. The “arguments” that you’ve mentioned are all pre-programmed talking points. These sheeple are fed the Party line like gospel and since no one in their circle ever seriously questions the gospel, neither do they. Nor are they capable of any original, logical and critical questioning of anything at all. Like I said, they are adolescents and may remain at that level of development for 50 years. Presenting an adolescent with facts rarely accomplishes the desired result, except for a minority that are mature enough to emerge from the cocoon. You have to grow them, patiently, with small bites of reality. Teach them to question the dogma by asking them to verbalize their positions, one at a time. And don’t let them jump to a different subject when the one being discussed becomes too difficult for them. Let the sink, let them understand the failure of their reasoning and their emotions; don’t give them an escape into another subject. The first goal is to break the bond with their dogma, with the Party line. One by one, as the bonds break, give them the knowledge of the alternative. This requires many days or weeks, or months, but you are trying to mature an adolescent that has been purposefully kept that way for decades; an amiable conversation at a party would not even make a dent here.
The second type of a socialist is a person for whom socialism is good – he lives on the government dole, he’s very comfortable with stealing, which he always rationalizes, and he may be climbing the social-political ladder on the backs of everyone in his path. That person is very aware of all your arguments, so save your breath. The life of thievery is very comfortable and suits him just fine. As long as you continue to work and pay your taxes, he will continue to view you as a brainless sub-human. I can think of several calibers that can solve this problem, but appealing to their moral fibers ain’t one of them.
Hope this helps.

It's unlikely they'll suddenly say drat I was wrong. Instead just ask intelligent questions.If they persist in talking about you instead of the issues stop talking bc it's pointless. It's okay for them to be wrong.

Wendell, you might remind people that the poor
in the u.s. live many times better than those in the
rest of the world, and the reason is -- well -- the
capitalism which remains. . the huge advances in
technology come from free capitalistic markets for
brains and value. . and it took a capitalistic nation
to give birth to Atlas Shrugged. -- john

Don't.... When you argue with a fool bystanders can't tell you apart. The people you are talking about don't want to hear the facts, information and most importantly the truth you are trying to convey. I am sure you know by now, that just upsets them. Take a moment and look at the world the way they do (be careful, its always warm and fuzzy and you might want to stay there). Anticipate waiting to receive your food stamp card at the end of the month along with your "check". Never in your life having to consider how hard the person that paid for your laziness had to work. You are playing a video game on the cell phone someone else created, when the battery goes dead. Now you spend 15 ranting about the d** battery, and why can't someone else make a battery that doesn't go dead.
Sorry! Thats what you are up against.

Say this to the socialists:
I completely support you redistributing wealth in any way you feel right. As for creating the wealth to redistribute, I'm curious to know - how do you plan to go about that? Will you be creating that wealth? Your friends maybe? Let me know how you get on with that.