Well, in a perfect world Magic would be a game of skill - it would reward good play and punish bad play. But Magic is also game of chance, and so it will never occur that good beats bad 100% of the time, that`s just the way it is.
BUT
That does not make the luck part a good thing. Refereeing mistakes are a part of football and can swing games, but that doesn`t mean they are a good thing. In many ways my argument IS that good players should beat bad players, that`s why they bothered practising to get good in the first place.
Do they have a 'right' to win games?
Perhaps they do. Certainly they have a right to EXPECT to win those games, they should certainly feel that the game is going to reward their effort and expense and time and abilility and concentration and practice and the networking that goes into becoming a good player. They should certaily feel that at some point they will be given an opportunity to show their ability and win because they were better than their opponent.
Luck is a part of Magic, and every player accepts that. You will NEVER hear a good player bemoan his bad luck, at least not seriously - perhaps he`ll say "Man, he topdecked AGAIN!" and throw his cards down, but five minutes later the frustration is forgotten and logged under 'Shit Happens'.
A good player knows better than anybody that over the course of his career he has been lucky more often than he has been unlucky, and he knows better than any beginner that Magic games are often decided by luck.
But that doesn`t mean that we should embrace luck and try to increase it`s influence over the game.
If I wanted to play a game where every game was decided by ability, and good player always beat bad, I would play Chess and watch Men`s Tennis. If I wanted to play a game where every game was decided by luck I would sit and flip coins all day long. For money.
Magic is neither Chess nor coinflipping, thankfully, but taking the Disk out made it more like the latter and less like the former.
That is something I, personally, disagree with.
You might not, and that`s fine - if we all agreed the arms industry would collapse and screw up the economy so it`s probably a good thing anyway.
*****
I have a totally seperate point about the Disk, which I will just outline here briefly (ie, less than 1500 words).
For me one of the main strengths of M:tG as a game - the reason why despite the fact it was the first it is still the best (think about how unique this is - is the Model T the best car ever, is the mud hut the best house?), is that it is a very diverse game to play, far more so than it`s competitors. So many of the other games on the market feel as though you are playing a black deck against a green deck, it`s all creature interaction.
In my experience only Netrunner works hard to break this trend, although as I understand it Star Wars was so poorly playtested that you could often build broken combo decks and avoid creature interaction. In Magic you can play virtually-creatureless control, combo, creature rush - almost every other game is entirely creature based (L5R, B5, Deadlands, Rage, Pokemon, Star Trek) and they are uninteresting to me because of how vanilla-like their games are. Look at the current rebel deck, never has a deck been more likely to degenerate into 'L5R Magic' as I dub it (both players continue to lay permanents until the table collapses under the weight of cardboard, and the last person to lay a permanent when that happens is the winner).
I enjoy the diversity of Magic decks, I enjoy living in a metagame with Bargain, Hatred, and Necro. If, by taking the Disk, WotC killed creatureless control, and if they then (as many people want) kill combo as well, then you simply reduce the mighty game of Magic - first and best of the CCGs - to the same level as it`s competitors.
THAT would be the real tragedy.