I cannot imagine any economic concept that doesn't have some benefit for somebody.

I do not believe that a policy should be enacted because it benefits the most numbers of people.

First, economics is not a science, it is a complex art. So to enact a policy is an exercise in performance art.

Therefore, one should evaluate the necessity of some interventionist policy (sens lat) on ethics and aesthetics, not pseudoscience.

In most cases, in a free society, government doing nothing is better than government doing something. This applies to taxation.

OTOH, Adam Smith had it right about 'trusts' being a great threat to free market. His concern was mostly the vast inherited wealth of the nobility, but it increasingly applies to the United States, unfortunately.