1) Equality of access to whatever society &#x2F; the world offers.<p>2) Unfair in this example means that something beneficial is given to some citizens over others just because they have more money -- as opposed to alternatives like: because they&#x27;ve benefited their society more, because they have equal rights as any other, or because of an actual merit.<p>3) &quot;Is a market allocation of 100 cabs worse than a random allocation of 0 cabs?&quot;<p>Yes, because the latter case doesn&#x27;t promote inequality, further privileging those that already have money.<p>This &quot;market allocation of 100 cabs&quot; doesn&#x27;t help at all anybody without the necessary cutoff amount. So essentially your question is: is it better to have a service cattering to just the top 100 richer people of a city, or to not have it at all.<p>If it was something inconsequential, like manicure, that would may be OK.<p>Something like cab service OTOH puts poor oeople in a further disadvantage. E.g. going to a job interview, one of the rich cab riders can get faster and more relaxed than the poor public transport&#x2F;walking guy.<p>Also not having access to a cab might even give a motive to those 100 with more money and power to fix public transport to be better.