I'm not saying your conclusion isn't wrong, but your argument probably is
I'm not saying that wasn't a bad play of words.
You may be willing to give up your liberty, but I, and many with me, are not. Terrorists are trolls; dear people of US and the world, please stop feeding them. The same goes for war mongers of all stripes.
In Sweden, we have a state monopoly on all alcoholic beverages, except for bars and restaurants. We have very high taxes on liquor, not so much on beer and wine. The monopoly is called Systembolaget (The System Company). They are among the biggest buyers of alcoholic beverages in the world, and they have a mean assortment.
Private import is regulated, but it's way more relaxed within the EU countries. Systembolaget will (must) import anything you want which they don't carry, and the process is generally very convenient.
While Swedes love bashing "Bolaget", I think a lot of people are quite satisfied - the opening hours are a little cumbersome (closing at 6-8 PM on weekdays, 3 PM Saturdays, closed on Sundays) but IMO that's counterbalanced by the great assortment.
We used to have a monopoly on the production of liquor as well. It was called Vin & Sprit (Wine & Spirits) and was the company who created Absolut Vodka. Absolut sold very well and they couldn't leave a profit (or something like that). They put all profits into advertising instead, making Absolut a very well known brand. The sitting administration recently sold the company to Pernod Ricard.
This is one of those ridiculous lies that Swedes like to tell themselves. There are single stores in France and Germany with a larger assortment than the entire beställningssortiment. Anything even slightly obscure requires ordering from abroad, with all the crap that entails.
That sounds better and worse than LCBO - iirc, importing specialty stuff through LCBO can be difficult. On the other hand, LCBO has gradually caught up with the move to very long opening hours that have become the norm in North America and now you can get your liquor at 9.
And it isn't an American truth that businesses really need to accomplish things to survive and thrive, it's the nature of the Universe we live in, where we must work for our sustenance, however distasteful you may find that.
It's neither an American truth nor the nature of the Universe, it's a story. Older than America (not the continent nor the people in it, but the idea), to be sure, but not that old. The necessity of work, indeed the celebration of it, is obviously interesting to discuss in the age of automation.
That reminds me of a suggestion by Charles Eisenstein in his book Sacred Economics - decaying currency, along with zero or negative interest. It would be interesting to see such a "funcoin"! It might not even have to decay that fast to fend off speculators.
I let people wait to buy tickets, and let Capitalism decide who would get the tickets instead of who got word of the shows first or who cared the most.
That's also the reason why they are so hurtful: People with little time and plenty of money are not usually great fans. People who gets an early word of shows, or cares the most are almost by definition great fans. So scalpers buy cheap tickets so that fewer fans can go, and sell them so more suits can go.
Assuming that scalping is legal, and doesn't break some contractual agreement with the ticket seller, it is not "hurtful".
What is best for society is not to give things to those who want/need them most, but to people who are willing to pay the most for them.
This is the first welfare theorem. The "suits" earned their money, and what is the point of earning money if you can only use it to buy things other people don't want? If you want to do redistribution, then it should be done fairly, through taxation, but after the redistribtution is done, there is no better way to distribute resources than on a willingness-to-pay basis
That's why we redistribute money. It's not the worldview that is awful, it's the fact the people prefer to spend money on themselves, than on other people.
Once you're done with redistribution, then the time for complaining that I can afford X while the starving artist who really appreciates it can't, is over.
EDIT: But to clarify, yes, if a person is willing to pay more for something, they should receive it. If you oppose this, then what you really oppose is that one person is richer than another. Hence the discussion on redistribution.