You might be able to, but lots of people can't afford to do that. You seem to be assuming that the people who want to go the most will pay the most, thus leading to meritocratic distribution of tickets. In reality, it will just skew concert attendance towards the wealthy who can afford to pay even if they're not that fussed about going.
Also it’s been established the artists are often hiding behind scalpers to sell tickets at true market prices, whilst appearing to sell them at “fair” prices.
Not everyone can live in the best location, not everyone can drive the best car, not everyone can attend the best concert. There is no other way when many people want something that is in limited supply - someone will be left out.
Wealth is a proxy for the amount of services provided to others earlier, so why giving tickets in exchange for that is less fair than giving tickets to the one who clicked first?
Yeah right. How many services has Elon Musk's toddler given to others, and how much have you?
Note that one of the strong drivers making people take risks, work shitty jobs, and otherwise do things that others don't want to do is exactly this -- providing for their families.
If I can be wealthy without providing others services, then my wealth is certainly a poor proxy for how many services I have provided.
It's a bad thing because wealth is a poor measure of the amount of services provided to others. And because while someone will always be left out, it's much better if it's not the same people always getting left out. Being able to click first is more accessible to more people, although I'd argue it isn't great either, and some kind of random lottery system might be better.
It's the best we have though.
Otherwise, should we also randomly distribute best homes, or whatever else is in limited supply?
Isn't it better than pure luck, even if luck plays a part in wealth?
Source? I don't think the research agree with that statement.
That alone would wipe out everyone who doesn't want to go but wants to resell for a profit.
The rest works itself out within the margin of error... if you want the tickets be there at opening.
And before someone else replies in bad faith like the comment I'm replying to did... maybe along the lines of "well what if your internet cuts out!!! or you get hit by a bus at that moment!!!": that's the margin of error.
You can't have a perfect meritocracy but you can have a better one.
So now instead of discriminating against people who don’t have enough money, now you are discriminating against people with busy lives who can’t be there right when the tickets go on sale.
Also, you would still end up with people who were there right when the tickets go on sale and still didn’t get any.
I don’t think your method is any more of a meritocracy.
If you can't figure out how biasing sales towards people who want to go to a concert is more meritorious than allowing people who want to resell for more than face in a context where "merit" is literally "wanting to see the show", you need to take a long hard sit and really think this one out.
You cannot have perfect system in real life, but you can move away from enabling people with no interest at all in the event to just those who at least had a cursory enough interest when they're not profiting.
Come on, let's get real here!