That's a funny straw man used against libertarians: that a person's only desire in life should be the accumulation of resources. I've never heard anyone argue that.

Aside from those who derive pleasure from their work, what desires can be fulfilled without the accumulation of resources?

The people who do care would have spent their resources on caring for others, losing their edge in profitability and sustainability. The people who don't care saved all their money and have more financial leverage as a result.

No matter what, the world is going to be screwed up unless more than 50% of the people are inherently good and under a democratically ruled, socialistic regime, or a truly benevolent individual with superpowers creates a magnificent dictatorship. Since neither of those are going to happen, I'd favor the least painful alternative.

Lounging with our families and friends at the end of the day requires the accumulation of resources. Your friends, how do they get to your residence? Why do they have extra time at the end of the day? When did you make these friends?

Every second you aren't working is paid for by the time you worked. Those with more resources have more free time.

As for my last statement, it should make anyone want to vomit, but it's the sad truth.

I'm going to pay for hospitals with good intentions and gumption!

Oh, if only those evil industrial corporations would stop exploiting those poor workers in third world countries like India and Thailand, and let them go back to the good old days of living on the streets and surviving by pickpocketing, begging, or underage prostitution, right.  

Someone who works 8 hours a day flipping burgers has an advantage over the person who works 16 hours a day flipping burgers because

Also painting/drawing, writing music or books, writing software/apps, blogging, cooking, racing cars, taking photos, traveling and writing guides, and having sex. All activities that people derive pleasure from that others happily pay them to help them continue to derive pleasure from it.

Meanwhile Mr. or Ms. 16 hours bides their time, saving and scrimping every cent. Eventually, robots are produced to flip burgers automatically. The grasshopper dies, the ant lives.

Meanwhile Mr. or Ms. 16 hours bides their time, saving and scrimping every cent. They grow envious of 8's happiness and decide to buy a weapon with the money they've saved. No one stops them. The grasshopper dies, the ant lives.

Meanwhile Mr. or Ms. 16 hours bides their time, saving and scrimping every cent. 16 saves up enough money to be able to procure some means of production, and forms a burger company. BurgerB takes enough customers away from BurgerA so that the grasshopper gets laid off. The grasshopper dies, the ant lives.

Yeah, I know, in some versions of the story the ant lets the grasshopper in and he learns his lesson and everyone is happy. Not this one. There's always going to be some jerk red ant acting purely to gain control of the market and/or situation, and the regulations on the market should be at most to keep these red ants' actions within reason, and at least a safety net for the grasshopper to not starve through a winter. I won't debate at all whether current governments meet these requirements, as I don't believe they do. However, a truly free market won't meet either.