Only very, very recently has humanity exited a Malthusian resource trap, where resources were a constant existential struggle and resource access was negative-sum (pillaging and such regularly destroyed quite a lot, but making a surplus was essentially impossible).

This is a strange thing. Let me give some indications as to why.

The Malthusian brain is rightly concerned about survival, about having enough to live. But post-Malthusian reality shows us that we can make a surplus through specialization, skilled work, useful assets, and trade. The more of those, the more surplus we get. So, let's say we have a Baz (some random stand in for a limited good). How should it get allocated? It's completely reasonable, in a Malthusian world, to ask, "who needs Baz?" But needs aren't the constraining force in a post-Malthusian world – and while people still have needs, it's (somewhat suddenly) not the ideal question. Coase Theorem tells us a better question is, "Who gets the highest surplus from Baz?"

Of course, for almost all things, the people who have the highest surplus are those who can take a thing, and make it more useful to others. If the Consumer values a Baz at $1, and Entrepreneur thinks "I can spend $0.50 to make a Baz into a (Consumer-valued-at-$2) Baz+", then the Entreprenuer will always be the purchaser of the Baz (until price dynamics changed the preferences of the consumer or something). One Baz is almost always more useful to people who build surplus – that's what it means to produce a surplus.

So our previous instincts of fairness, of equality, and of sharing, are (at least slightly) broken. Systems that generate surplus (i.e. generate more delight in the world than they consume) will have plenty of resources to continue – they'll have no need – but simultaneously be the optimal place for resources to be allocated. They make the world the most-better place. "But you don't need it!" is true and reasonably compelling, but generally wrong.

This contradicts human intuition so strongly it's possible it will never exist within our mental shorthand. We'd have to return to our models of the world and ask, every time.