Everyone deserves a say in the allocation of resources. The way we accomplish that is through government. Elon Musk is not improving the environment, he's launching cars into space for giggles while mistreating his workers.
How about we amend that to, 'Everyone deserves a say in the allocation of resources, in proportion to their demonstrated ability to amass and manage resources'.
Elon Musk figured out how to make a ton of money; he has more right to determine its use than some bureaucrat in an office. You say that government is our method of collective allocation, but it's really unelected officials doing what lobbyists recommend. I trust them a lot less than I trust a rich philanthropist.
Kings and Dictators get overthrown for a reason.
All people deserve to have a say in society, even if they don't want it, use it poorly, or use it reluctantly. It's not because human rights should matter to all individuals, it is because the implementation of human rights and equality is a better guarantee of social stability, and therefore a better conduit for trade and growth.
Kings and Dictators open up a society to turmoil and instability, which is bad for markets. There is no reason for a society not to guarantee social stability through measures of equality at this point.
Also, the only difference between war and commerce is the level of violence applied. War is an exchange, just as commerce is. The only difference is what is being offered in the exchange. In commerce "I will give you this for that." And in war, it's the same: "I will give you my bullets for your surrender."
Lastly, Elon Musk didn't just get rich through selling things people want. No one believes that this works. Henry Ford even said as much: "If I had asked people what they wanted they would have asked for faster horses." Musk gained his power by being opportunistic. He jumped into opportunities at the right time, competitively fought to get the engineers he needed, and punched his way through almost every problem he faced. The product quality is a byproduct of his ruthlessness as a capitalist. Don't forget it.
I think you're horribly twisting the meaning of Ford's words there. It doesn't mean "ignore what people want", it means to figure out what they actually want. People didn't want faster horses, they wanted better transport - "faster horses" was just how they expressed that.
Citation very much needed. I'd say "luck given the presence of opportunity and ability", perhaps - but luck alone is certainly not enough. (Or else why do lottery winners do so poorly?)
As for "the willingness to exploit others", is this universally true? Are performers exploiting their audiences? Companies their customers? Their workers? Their vendors?
I think that would be trivially true for some definitions of "exploit", but that is not the definition of exploit that most people would tend to think of.
This makes the huge assumption that "the market" is already equitably rewarding talent with money. It is not. Luck, heritage (inherited wealth and power), and race/gender all skew how much you can amass and the effects are exponential, not linear.
That's like saying that winning a game makes you competent to referee it.
The rules they run by are created by your elected representatives.