I try to think of the greatest counterarguments to things that I believe strongly in. I believe strongly in libertarianism, and the value of a free market, minimal government system. And so I ask myself, often, what are the strongest arguments against it? And clearly there must be many, otherwise, why would so few people brand themselves as libertarian (at least, openly)? The percentage is small in the United States, and even smaller in the world at-large.
I think the biggest argument is one of empathy. If there is a poor person on the streets, why is the rich person not helping them? If the rich person is not going to help them on their own volition, then why doesn't the government intervene to make them? Surely, this must stem from a lack of empathy on the part of the rich person, no?
It is easy to conflate empathy with morality, but it is, at times, irrational. And I believe it is here. The question is not so much about empathy as much as it is sustainability. If a billionaire could give away 95% of their fortune and know, with absolute certainty, that no bad times would befall the people they helped, and that there would be fewer people in perpetuity as a result, and that the outcome of the world X years from now (it can be 5, 10, 20, or whatever number you like in the medium-to-distant future) would be categorically better as a result, I'm sure most of them would.
But ultimately, a transfer of cash does not resolve systemic issues. It certainly won't address productivity shortcomings, which come from new innovations and ideas, which just so happen to be best-funded by venture capital. As the name implies, this is capital given to "a risky or daring journey or undertaking", as defined by Google.
Slate Star Codex wrote an excellent piece on what is called "cost disease" (also known as the Baumol effect). The implications are that some of the most crucial areas of our lives, including our housing, our healthcare, and our education, are skyrocketing in cost, far outpacing inflation, and far outpacing any rise in wages. The consequence is that despite decades of increased per-capita productivity thanks to new technology, people (most often young, but older individuals, as well) have less disposable income than before, and more are living paycheck-to-paycheck.
But attributing our current cost-of-living crises (I consider them to be multiple, distinct crises across each unique field, including healthcare, housing, and education primarily), solely to the Baumol effect would leave us remiss to the role that each of us play in this through our elected representatives and our (supposedly) representative government. I would say there is a second, perhaps greater, determinant of our present issues. I believe it to be our regulatory burden.
In the cases of healthcare and housing, our regulatory burden has a direct effect on constraining the supply. No matter what we do to the demand, regardless of each subsequent government's futile attempts to subsidize or manipulate the demand side, we have insufficient supply to meet our present needs.
I plan to have separate posts on each of them soon. But for now, I believe it is safe to say that there are a multitude of ways in which government regulations or restrictions play a direct role in the (housing and healthcare) supply shortages we see today.
If we addressed the issues of skyrocketing healthcare costs and housing costs effectively (which I sincerely believe a libertarian approach can address far more effectively and sustainably than any other), then more people will have more disposable income, and by proxy, more time and utility, for much longer-term than any one-time cash transfer from the rich to the poor can provide.
People may often be skeptical that the benefits of an unbridled, free market system can be seen and shared by everyone. They are often not sure whether they can attain some portion of that wealth for themselves. This, I believe, is what leads to resentment of the rich and a desire to elect socialist leaders to "punish" them and ensure society is more "fair" and "just".
But, if the benefits of an unbridled, free market system can be shared, it would be the outcome that leads to greater utility for the poor and the middle class (compared to socialist tax-and-spend in conjunction with more regulation). This makes it easy to reconcile empathy with my libertarian values. It is the most empathetic set of values to have.