On the latter point, the thought is: influence has many sources. Most of them don't seem particularly objectionable. (We're not the slightest bit tempted to try to get more people to listen to homeless folks than to NY Times columnists.) So it doesn't seem that inequality of influence is objectionable *in general*. So that raises the que…
On the latter point, the thought is: influence has many sources. Most of them don't seem particularly objectionable. (We're not the slightest bit tempted to try to get more people to listen to homeless folks than to NY Times columnists.) So it doesn't seem that inequality of influence is objectionable *in general*. So that raises the question of why inequality of influence *that stems from the particular source of wealth* is any more objectionable.
I agree this doesn't decisively establish that it isn't objectionable. Maybe there's some argument there that could be given. But I'm just highlighting the need for such an argument, and explaining why I don't personally find the conclusion to be immediately obvious.
On the latter point, the thought is: influence has many sources. Most of them don't seem particularly objectionable. (We're not the slightest bit tempted to try to get more people to listen to homeless folks than to NY Times columnists.) So it doesn't seem that inequality of influence is objectionable *in general*. So that raises the question of why inequality of influence *that stems from the particular source of wealth* is any more objectionable.
I agree this doesn't decisively establish that it isn't objectionable. Maybe there's some argument there that could be given. But I'm just highlighting the need for such an argument, and explaining why I don't personally find the conclusion to be immediately obvious.