Yeah many libertarians think that more capitalism will benefit working people. The main trick to disabusing them of that notion is disabusing them of the notion that more or less government isn't a valid framing to understand politics. Who the law benefits matters. Also introducing Marxism as extending economic theory to politics helps.
Before you even bother with this, though, it's important to get a feel for who's persuadable and who's just a brick wall that will suck up whatever time and effort you throw at them. That's why cutting straight to "what do you do with poor people?" is helpful -- if they give a shit about other people, you might be able to reach them with arguments like the one you're describing. But if they are fine with horrific stuff like letting "undeserving" poor people go hungry and homeless in the richest country on the planet, they're a lost cause, and you're better off not even bothering.
more or less government isn’t a valid framing to understand politics
This is a useful point to raise, and you'll have even more success with it if you emphasize the distinction between parts of government that give stuff to people (e.g., schools giving education) and parts of government that point guns at people (e.g., cops and troops). "More government" that results in better education is qualitatively different than "more government" that puts more people in prison.
Yeah many libertarians think that more capitalism will benefit working people. The main trick to disabusing them of that notion is disabusing them of the notion that more or less government isn't a valid framing to understand politics. Who the law benefits matters. Also introducing Marxism as extending economic theory to politics helps.
Before you even bother with this, though, it's important to get a feel for who's persuadable and who's just a brick wall that will suck up whatever time and effort you throw at them. That's why cutting straight to "what do you do with poor people?" is helpful -- if they give a shit about other people, you might be able to reach them with arguments like the one you're describing. But if they are fine with horrific stuff like letting "undeserving" poor people go hungry and homeless in the richest country on the planet, they're a lost cause, and you're better off not even bothering.
This is a useful point to raise, and you'll have even more success with it if you emphasize the distinction between parts of government that give stuff to people (e.g., schools giving education) and parts of government that point guns at people (e.g., cops and troops). "More government" that results in better education is qualitatively different than "more government" that puts more people in prison.