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.

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.

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."

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.

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...

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.

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

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.

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.

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.