In other words, the consequences of the free market are much preferable to the intentions of statist socialism. The same is true of gun control. Many liberals are simply hungry for raw state power and see in this issue a means to grab more control for the state elite. There is no solid evidence of this, though there is solid evidence that an armed citizenry deters violent crime. The fact that most people who buy guns do not intend for the wider society to benefit in the form of less frequent violent crime is immaterial.
Good consequences trump good intentions every time.
Conservative protectionists mean well when they introduce policies designed to guarantee the jobs of specific industries. It is the consequences of those policies, not the intentions of their advocates, which are flawed. It harms overseas workers by banishing them to mere subsistence living that can be remedied by jobs that produce exports for the consumers of wealthier nations. In the debate between free traders and protectionists, good intentions are not enough. In today's sentimental climate, the liberals usually win the battle for public opinion.