This reminds me a lot of trickle-down economics. We can all see a problem - but while some people try to derive a solution using empirics (e.g. through pilot st

This reminds me a lot of trickle-down economics. We can all see a problem - but while some people try to derive a solution using empirics (e.g. through pilot studies), other people point to some metaphysical solution and say "if we all just believe enough, everything will be fine!". I don't see a difference between a libertarian arguing for a free market, which once free enough, will optimally provide for most participants - or your examples of simply requiring "slightly-more-traditional values". Can you show empirically that this is an actual solution? I have read studies which show that wealth concentration leads to massive social problems, partially like the ones we are now experiencing. Why should I follow your solution instead of the ones suggested by the studies?