we libertarians focus too much on material wealth. Take for example globalization. The markets opened up the material wealth has increased, that's a fact. The problem is that people want things to do to feel like part of a society. Material wealth is truly desired only when a basic need is not met, and honestly all our basic needs are basically fully met outside of healthcare, which is the only thing that can truly increase meaningfully with an increase in material wealth. Since we only think about healthcare when we fall ill, most people probably would prefer to be part of a society where we have a role than a wealthier society, as long as our basic needs are met. I vaguely remember a Tom Woods episode in which the guest defended globalization by saying that Obama saved a company that was producing tires, by putting tariffs on tires from Mexico. This way Obama saved like 400 jobs but the cost on the people was supposedly billions in increased tires price so it would have been cheaper even to just give hundreds of thousands to the 400 workers and fire them. Now, while this reasoning has many merits, I think it underestimate the value that people put in having a role in society. People want a role and people don't like change. People don't like to be fired and they probably prefer having less material wealth but a stable job with decent status than having to compete on rent with rich chinese immigrants or having to change job or even not having a job at all and living on welfare or even living as unemployed just on the fact that the price of goods is so low they throw basic goods at you or whatever else you can think of about the effects of globalization and more material wealth. I'm not advocating for a top-down solution, but I think we don't think enough about this, or at least I don't know what libertarians (especially the mises-kind) have to say about this. It's also another reason why I'm skeptical about UBI, even assuming it can work economically (which it can't).