1 What specifically are "economic freedom’s apologists" to which the writer refers?

The term "apologist” is usually applied to someone who is defending a reprehensible system or theory. One might be, for instance a "Critical Race Theory apologist,” but to refer to someone apologizing for economic freedom seems absurd. Perhaps you meant to say economic freedom’s advocates.

And switching to moral arguments will be an exercise in futility, because today’s generations have not been taught the ability to think in abstract terms, or in any kind of logical manner. They can think only in materialistic self interest and in "social principles” that they have been instructed to parrot.

2 I don't know that the word "apologist" is necessarily a bad thing. Christian thinkers often refer to themselves as apologists. But I take your point.

Bill I do disagree in that what Selwyn is saying is that there is a moral case to be made for free markets that transcend the purely practical - and those moral arguments are stronger when the case is made than are the purely practical. For example, it should be argued that socialism is inherently evil because it enshrines stealing. How do you argue against socialism at this point? Most people try to say it doesn't work, which of course it does not, but hardly anyone is making the case against it as a matter of pure theft. I rather suspect it would resonate with some young people if you made it plain that this is qualitatively no different than stealing their Nikes or their I-phones. Right now they see socialism as morally superior because it appears to offer the most good to the most people. There is no MORAL pushback against it these days - only arguments about practicality.

Maybe it won't work; you have a strong case. But certainly the approach we've been taking just doesn't work.