Money=power, including political power. Politically active billionaires violate the one-man-one-vote principle, especially after the supreme court ruled that money=speech in Citizen United.

Is this going to be the "interstate commerce clause" for the left, by which absolute interference is justified because everything, even non-commercial private actions, are interstate at some point, or displace something which might have been interstate. Because nobody is ever exactly "equal" to someone else, in ability, resources, etc, nobody but the most victimized person can actually vote.

By this logic any difference in equity absolutely demolishes the concept of democracy thus before the people can be trusted with any input they must all be "equalized" and placed into an economic system that keeps them that way. And before then, any inequality or privilege discovered or invented can be used to entirely negate a person's opinion.

That's the only way you can have it. Either billionaires have the same rights we have, and more resources, or we've all got a boot on our necks that takes away anyone's freedoms whenever they become inconvenient for the state.

If the only options are absolute tyranny or oligarchy it shows a lack of imagination. We can have any form of government we want if we let go of our indoctrinations.

If people are only allowed to have opinions when they meet your equity and other purity standards that's a tyranny.

And yeah, there are only two choices, a) require purity checks for voters and scale their vote arbitrarily by the standards of the current rulers, or b) give everyone an equal vote.

You're defending billionaires who don't give a crap about you except as someone to exploit. This is called "being complicit in your own oppression."

Because inflation. If we're all rich, no one is rich.

That's the dumbest argument ever.

If we all have food-, housing-, and medical-security, then we all are doing great.

Wrong. Almost everyone in the world is far richer than everyone in the world 1000 years ago.