I'm going to stop you right there. At no point did I say anything about "a completely free market". Indeed, a completely free market would destroy any vestige of economic equality. No, a properly regulated market is what I'm talking about (I didn't say you said free market.  What I was saying was that you would need one to achieve a system where your pay is based off of something as subjective as "harder, smarter, etc."  Also, you say properly regulated.  Who will be doing the regulation, you say?  Do you think it's realistic for the people to regulate themselves or for the people of society to regulate the market?  -->) - one that is set up to make the "rational choice" for each person the same as the best outcome for society.  (Do you really think that's possible?  Maybe for a small society, but a large one I think would be impossible unless you have a totalitarian regime prior to it to get people into the position they need to be to set things like this.  Even then, there are no guarantees) Right now, it works a lot more like the prisoner's dilemma, where the system encourages people to make decisions that are to the detriment of society in the long run. (That doesn't sound like the pirsoner's dilemma to me.  Prisoner's dilemma is an IR term, and if you try applying it to domestic it still doesn't make sense because it's not a system anyway.  The Prisoner's dilemma refers to a dilemma of whether to trust, or to betray and the outcomes of when both sides don't trust and end up working out worse for both parties)

Indeed, if you notice, I referred to a "general rule". Not a "Rule", as in a requirement, but a "General rule", as in "a rule of thumb" or "a typical result". And this rule wouldn't be imposed, it would be engendered - people would follow it of their own volition. 
Not sure, is English your first language?  A general rule does not mean a typical result.  A rule of thumb is also not a general rule.  A general rule is a more vague way to refer to a set of standards or rules.  You can call England's legal system based on general rule, as it is based off of "common law."

You seem to have misinterpreted everything I've said, in fact. I didn't say that the 24 hour news cycle is the sole cause of corruption, I said that the result of the 24 hour news cycle's impact on politics is corruption.  (Weird you keep accusing me of misinterpreting what you say when I didn't say that either.  Nowhere did I imply that you thought the 24 hour news cycle is the sole cause of corruption.  What I did imply was that what you said looked like you thought the main cause for our corruption is what you call the "24 hour news cycle" and I disagree.  Corruption is simply when a government does something it's not supposed to be doing.  The 24 hour news cycle doesn't enable this behavior any more than it makes it a disincentive for it.) If I said that spending too much time at the beach results in skin cancer, it wouldn't mean that skin cancer didn't exist prior to people spending time at the beach. 

The point of my post was to get clarification as to what the original posted considers "economic equality", with details on how those two concepts differ, and thus why I need the clarification. Economic equality could mean "everyone is treated equally", or it could mean "everyone is on a level playing field with respect to things like family wealth, etc". Note that I never said that there's "a correct way" to set up a democracy. I said that if it's properly set up, then it can be compatible with economic equality (using the "level playing field" version). See, words have meanings - "correct way" is very different from "properly set up". The former implies a specific approach, whereas the latter is more like fine-tuning to make it run correctly. (Not really, those differences are not big at all.  Proper and correct are a difference of degree, if anything.  Both are subjective by the way.  Both imply "correctness" so I was still right to bring up the word)  Any democratic system could be set up "properly" to be compatible with economic equality, and for each system, the result would be different. I am simply asserting that it is possible to tweak or change any democracy to work towards the economic equality ideal. Of course, being an ideal, it will never be 100% achieved... but that doesn't mean it can't be compatible.  (Here's the problem, I asserted it isn't compatible unless you have something opposite of a democracy first.  Even then it may fall apart due to being "incompatible")

And I find it fascinating that you have a psychic power sufficient to determine that my system wouldn't work in the real world, when I haven't even described ANY of it to you. (I said I doubt, and it's due to what you already said, not what you didn't say) In case you didn't know, I'm an applied mathematician.  (Applied mathematics means nothing in this field, which I know a good bit about.  It would be different if you had an economics degree, but even then I would be skeptical) I know all about theory vs practice, and I have incorporated that into my ideas. I've also looked into the various systems currently in play, and I have formulated ideas that address what I perceive as holes in the current systems.  (None of that means much when you don't know the actual fundamentals of the topic)

What do you feel was innacurate? 

If I weren't dating a girl who's dad is one of those CEO guys then I might agree with you. *might*

But I've seen proper work ethic and a respect for money instilled by very wealthy men into their children, so I would disagree. Some men desire to create an empire for their children, so by hard work they deserve to be able to give that to them.

Those men who's sons drive R8's (damn sexy car) at 19 perhaps, are more often than not, very poor fathers. That does not mean that they didn't deserve the money they have.

How many millionaire's do you know? The one family I've gotten to know that are very, very wealthy certainly deserver it - all of them.

Is this a good book? What's it about (without spoiling).

I thought what you said was fine, but you do sound a bit arrogant. What if you're the less talented type?

Well I believe the rich should help the poor. And I think it is sad that it takes a government to force us to do it.   I have an interest addition. Do you feel atheism and socialism are compatible? All atheists pretty much need to believe in evolution to make their worldview work. Doesn't socialism in nature stunt the evolutionary process? I would think atheism would lead one logically to fascism. 

You didn't read the whole thread.  I'll put it in the op after this but the question is not about the possibility of economic equality existing.  It simply is asking if democracy inhibits it, or encourages it.  You can surely get closer to economic equality than we have now. 

It is part of the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind, and one of the best books in the series. It's pretty good. It's very, very, very  much like Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, but in the context of a High Fantasy universe. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_of_truth