The Legendary Dragon Alephwyr, named Alephwyr, BA

More trust for a conservative who has always rejected capitalism on first principles, than one who has rejected it empirically. Capitalism breeds success. Unequal success certainly. Objecting to it after observing it means rejecting a fair game based on an unwanted outcome.

How do you establish the fairness of the game? It seems to me that a rejection of capitalism on empirical grounds means that capitalism has failed to fulfill one's standards of fairness.

Most people don't have a well developed conception of fairness, especially as it concerns games with an element of chance. In which context "the dice aren't loaded" is about the best you can do.

right, but what makes capitalism the "dice aren't loaded" scenario here?

The dice are loaded in various ways. And Capitalism, especially actually existing Capitalism, is imperfect. But things tend to run their course more easily and often in Capitalism. They get obstructed in strange ways the more intervention there is

Arguing that capitalism is fairer because things "run their course more easily and often" (running which course?) seems to me like preferring because it's outcome is more desirable. And, conversely, rejecting other models because one finds their projected outcomes less desirable.

Also, you're implying that capitalism is the least-intervention model, which I guess depends on your view of what an intervention is, which are necessary and which unacceptable. State enforcement of private property seems like a major intervention.