Achieving the most exclusionary ends pursued for the most exclusionary reasons is a phrase that has no meaning in the context of wealth differences. And as a political position, if society democratically votes for the most exclusionary ends for the most exclusionary reasons then either you respect society's ability to self-govern or you don't.
It's not conceived in the context of wealth difference, but it's certainly applicable, so I reject your argument that it's meaningless. Additionally, it's obviously intended to be appended to what is considered the fundamental democratic premises and not to override them, meaning it's entirely permissible to do so through a democratic vote.
There's a smattering of paternalism in this idea that the wealthy will run roughshod over the poor in terms of political speech and the direction of the country. But it's not wealth that most limits political advocacy, it's interest and time. And if the poor want something badly enough, they can outvote the rich. Unless they are so stupid that they can't decide what they think is best for their vision of the country.
There's a smattering of paternalism in quite a lot of places, notably in the idea of representative democracy itself. So I don't think you can carry this objection consistently. As for the rest, we've already been over that.
It's not a better solution since it's premised on impacting political advocacy. Careful wealth allocation has plenty of positive arguments in society but parity of political speech is not one of them.
What? I literally said that it's not premised on that. That's a beneficial side effect. And it's not about parity of political speech, it's about political speech not being owned by someone to the exclusion of the greater population. Preventing the most extreme disparity is not the same as ensuring parity.
But you're not arguing equality of opportunity. You're arguing an equality of outcomes. You're arguing that the end result of the various efforts should be relatively equal time advocating their political speech. Which is just a dressed up way of restricting political speech. It says that Advocate X can't speak as much as he/she wants if Advocate Y is unable to match it financially.
Not really, though. The opportunity is to advocate, the outcome is how many are swayed by that. And it's not restricting speech, it's balancing: it's not that you can't say some things, it's that you can't overpower the rest in terms of content. That doesn't have to be applied to all media, either, just where it's considered critical. Besides, the example was just a tangent, and a tangent to an example that isn't relevant to my argument.
All equality of opportunity requires is that the government does not limit someone. People can limit each other as they so choose. It's the marketplace of ideas. Sell your goods to the best of your ability. If they're of quality, you will find customers.
That's incorrect, as equality of opportunity is actually a right to not be discriminated against. So in principle the government should intervene if you aren't given a fair shake by others in the areas where equality of opportunity is seen as a right. For instance, it's generally illegal in Norway to not hire someone because they are pregnant, and it's illegal to even ask someone if they have plans of starting a family in an interview.
