[solatic]

The deeper question is whether society should subsidize inefficiency for the sake of social stability. You're making the claim that social stability is always preferable, but this is more widely considered to be debatable at best.

  * Should healthcare payers (whether private, through regulations on private insurance, or public, e.g. Medicare) be forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for life-extending care for the terminally ill in great pain, thus inflicting responsibility for those rising costs on the rest of society?
  * Should the elderly be spared from rising property taxes on the mostly-empty houses where they raised their families, so that they won't be forced to move, thus making housing shortages worse?
  * Should we prevent employers from firing people from jobs which are no longer needed, like gas station attendants, so that those workers will have guaranteed employment, thus preventing consumer prices from falling?

At the very least, it's debatable, and not obviously a good thing.

[beaeglebeach]

As an ancap you're the first to ever accuse me of this, and my mere ability to view outcomes from perspective of others is in no way the claim you've accused me of making.