You put forward a very reasonable line of thinking, but any system that tries to "adjust" free market economics to insure that someone isn't "too" successful implies someone or something with the power to make those decisions.

Decide how much someone can earn, whether they really deserve it, and how much of it they should be allowed to keep, and who deserves their earnings more than they do.

Unfortunately, such mechanisms have turned out to have a lot more flaws than the free market economy. I pointed out that egalitarianism has not had a good record in economic systems this past century.

An ideal libertarian economy uses the government (in its economic role) to provide a legal framework to prevent force and fraud, and enforce contracts. In real life, it gets more complicated than the ideal, of course, but this is the foundation on which everything else should be based.

Between entitlements, welfare, and other programs, well over half of our government is now dedicated to moving money from one group of citizens into the pockets of others for no value returned other than their votes for those doing the moving. I can't believe this is what the founders had in mind.