A curious hallmark of exceptionally rich societies is that they can sustain (for a while?) a population divided by equally unrealistic political ontologies (theories of what is real). The left specialises in ignoring the bases of our unprecedented wealth, while libertarians specialise in ignoring the dependence of that wealth on political freedom, i.e the mass production of views diverging from theirs.
See also Enculturated Poverty.
Incidentally, if you pardon a polemical detour, the ultimate motive of the left is naked greed, the obsession to appropriate what belongs to others. The ultimate motive of libertarians is intellectual greed, the obsession to monopolise truth and thus by implication rob non-partisans of the possibility of being right. Of course, intellectual greed is to be found in the left, but it is secondary to their more fundamental material avarice. Redistribution, a euphemism for coercive expropriation, is the source from which all arguments of the left issue. They are intellectually unsophisticated and unperturbed by their own fragmentary and contradictory arguments, relying on emotion and force. By contrast, intellectually greedy, libertarians do not care much for political success and power, being preponderantly concerned with a theory that purportedly explains everything and always proves superior to rival ideas.
As for the left's ignorance of the basis of our wealth, Herando de Soto notes,
Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century has attracted worldwide attention not because he crusades against inequality — many of us do that — but because of its central thesis, based on his reading of the 19th and 20th centuries: that capital “mechanically produces arbitrary, unsustainable inequalities” inevitably leading the world to misery, violence and wars and will continue to do so in this century. [...]
Piketty worries about wars in the future and suggests that they will come about in the form of a rebellion against the inequities of capital. Perhaps he hasn’t noticed that the wars over capital have already begun right under Europe’s nose in the Middle East and North Africa. Had he not missed these events, he would have seen that these are not uprisings against capital, as his thesis claims, but for capital.
De Soto draws these lessons from the Arab Spring and similar upheavals in the Third World:
First, capital is not at the root of misery and violence but rather the lack of it. The worst inequality is not to have capital.
Second, for most of us outside the West, not prisoners of European categorizations, capital and labor are not natural enemies but intertwined facets of a continuum.
Third, most important constraints to development of the poor arise from their inability to build and protect capital.
And, the ability to build and protect capital requires appropriate policies, a congenial and reasonably stable political order as well as a government and a state capable of affording these vital conditions.