&gt; the basic argument is that the availability of private college&#x2F;lawyers&#x2F;your-favourite-resource favours the rich and powerful, and that you can only get actual equal access for all to education&#x2F;trial-defense&#x2F;something-else if you force the rich and powerful to have an equal playing field with everyone else (at which point they will then use their power to ensure a decent&#x2F;good level of the service for everyone, including themselves).<p>I don&#x27;t get it. Can you actually argue in court that because a particular outcome would be &quot;unequal&quot; in terms of access, that the services in question shouldn&#x27;t be available to anybody? As far as I know, that&#x27;s never been a viable argument. You have to satisfy a much stronger criteria for this sort of thing, that it&#x27;s an actual public ill. Inequality, as far as I know, has never, by itself been sufficient to prove that.