It is important for people to learn the connection between property rights as being directly protected by liberty, and how this connection ensures life. To help picture this clearly, think of yourself as Robinson Crusoe. Or Tom Hanks in Cast Away. Or if you’re talking to the very young, Matt Damon in The Martian.
These fictional characters illustrate this bond between property and life. When these castaways were shipwrecked alone, the only choices presented to them is either to survive or to perish. In order to live, they will have to employ the use of their mind and direct their body to produce the necessary requirement of survival: shelter, water, food.
A socialist will bring up the example: imagine if a year later, another castaway is stranded on the same patch of land as you. Don’t you have the moral obligation to share your shelter, water and food with him? The answer to this is not “yes you’re obligated morally to share” nor “no, you’re not obligated morally to share”, but rather, the correct answer is: “you shall decide”.
Why is “you shall decide” the right answer? It is because the shelter, water and food you’ve created is a product of your mind and body, which is an extension to your very life.
The laws of survival which applies to you when you were first shipwrecked applies to the new castaway, as well. He too must employ his mind and body to ensuring his own survival. Because if he did produce the requirement for his survival, you yourself do not have the right to take the product of his labor from him against his will in the case where you fail to produce what you need to survive.
Naturally, logic obliges, that if another person is shipwrecked, you’d want to help him, because he will in turn, be a useful addition to your life. You could request that he help you plow your land in exchange for food. In this case, both parties engage in the exchange of value for value. No one is required to involuntary give up their property.
This is capitalism. This is the reason why socialist despises the defining of liberty as being tied to property rights, and want to do away with property rights completely, by condemning the profit motive in capitalism. It is because capitalism isn’t slavery.
A bit awkardly-written, shall we say, in spots—but let he who is without sin cast the first etc…ahem. I suspect maybe English is not her first language, not that there’s anything wrong with that. No biggie, of course; all in all, she lays out the core philosophical case defining socialism as slavery simply and well, I think, without resort to the practical argument reciting the litany of its sure-thing-every-time failure. How useful her argument might be in terms of persuasion is open to question at best, sadly enough, since the blockhead Left isn’t listening anyway.