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?
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.
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.