Backwards. My criticism of something you are advocating is that it dismisses or ignores current and historical reality that is contradictory.
I could advocate a Supreme Benevolent Ruler as a perfect answer to everything, no LVT required. The Supreme Benevolent Ruler - our Deus Ex Machina
who is there to save the day, would simply make sure that everything is absolutely fair and just for everyone. Simple! Perfect!
Now one could certainly object, saying that without checks and balances in place there is an historical likelihood of a Terrible Evil Tyrant cropping up instead. I could easily dismiss that criticism with your tactic, saying, "Why would he do that? It's not in the tyrant's interests! Why, don't you know, isn't it obvious, that a dictator will stand to gain much more if s/he is benevolent and fair? Don't you see that?!" And I would be right, of course, because that is most definitely true; not that the dictator would be fair, but only that it's in his interests to be.
Furthermore, I could dismiss that objection as a completely ridiculous straw man, since I am advocating a Supreme Benevolent Ruler, not a Terrible Evil Tyrant. Duh.