> If everyone had the same amount of money, these things would still be allocated on the basis of who's willing to pay the most for them - that is, who's willin

> If everyone had the same amount of money, these things would still be allocated on the basis of who's willing to pay the most for them - that is, who's willing to give up the most other things in order to get that thing. Though that's arguably a better situation from the equality perspective. Right now we have people who are allocated everything they want and others who are allocated none of what they need. Taking redistribution to a monomaniacal extreme is probably a bad idea for well understood reasons, but that doesn't mean that redistribution doesn't have its place.