I don’t think that’s true.
Koen Smets

Didn’t you write a recent entry about price gouging? If there’s a natural disaster and there’s a shortage of water, then most people aren’t going to be happy with the supply of water. Most people would want a larger supply of water. We know this to be true because, in the absence of anti-gouging laws, the price of water would skyrocket… which would simultaneously encourage conservation and reallocation. Sooner rather than later the supply of water would be acceptable to most people.

So most people can be temporarily unhappy with the supply of welfare but, if the pragmatarian market is allowed to freely function, then the supply should quickly adjust to meet the demand. When that happens most people will be happy with the supply of welfare.

The Invisible Hand wouldn’t be very effective if most people were consistently unhappy with the supply of welfare, tofu or anything else.

Would Bob really be happy if the total amount of money spent on welfare exceeded his preferred amount by one trillion dollars? He must perceive that the trillion dollars is more needed elsewhere… maybe public education. It’s unlikely though that most taxpayers would be unhappy with $3 trillion being spent on welfare. Or, if they were unhappy, they’d adjust their individual spending accordingly, which would improve the total amount spent on welfare… and result in the happiness of most taxpayers.

Every taxpayer individually adjusting/improving their own tax allocations must result in a distribution of tax dollars that maximizes total taxpayer happiness.