If you hire, promote, or allow entry to people regardless of race or gender, than there isn't a lack of opportunity.

You can address inequality without methods like say racial quotas. If say education is an issue, then you can focus on making sure schools are better funded. A person may still make the choice to drop out of school though, and that's on them.

If people still find other ways to not hire people on the basis of race (and they do to this very day, this is a fact) then yes there is a lack of opportunity. 

If people are unbanked on the basis of the ethnic group they were born in, then yes there is a lack of opportunity. This happens today. 

If people live in a food desert because of the racial group they were born in, then yes there is a reduction in opportunity. 

If a person starts out in a worse public school district because they were born in a segregated location (and yes American cities, especially in the North, are still very much segregated) then yes there is a lack of opportunity.  

Racial quotas were banned in the 1970's in the U.S.

Positive discrimination/Affirmative Action (until last year) in the U.S had very little to do with racial quotas and much more to do with assessing what a person has done with the opportunities they had available to them on the basis of various socioeconomic factors, including race and gender but also things like zip code, familial education background, and familial income. 

If access to education is the issue, then the solution is better funding for schools.

Food deserts are a tricky one cos in very poor areas (regardless of race) there's the risk that shoplifting due to said poverty could discourage supermarkets and the like.

Unbanking isn't something I'm particularly familiar with, but that would fall under the basic principle of that people should be treated equally, same as hiring. How best to realistically achieve this I can't say; if I had all the answers for solving inequality I wouldn't be spending my day on a niche video game forum.

Many poor-performing districts already get better state and federal funding on a per student basis than high-performing districts. The problem is that it can cost more to educate a student in a low SES district than it does in a high SES district because they often have more needs/deficits and fewer resources outside of school. 

How do you fundamentally see this as different from affirmative action? Is the major difference that it isn't explicitly racial and it applies to a group (the district) and not an individual as a member of said group? 

Underlying any of these policy change recommendations is the fact that white-americans want segregation because they think it benefits them, so it isn't clear to me that they'd support increased public funding to mostly non-white districts systematically. The main advantage of integration/desegregation is that the racial aspect is de-emphasized because you have a decent proportion of white and non-white students mutually in the district and the parents have to be invested in the education standards of non-white children in the same district as their white children. 

One solution to unbanking is to bring back postal banking 

The Nazis were not socialist. At. All!

Yes, socialist is in the name, but if the name would be always saying exactly how the party is, then we'd have to move the statue of liberty from New York to Pyongyang. I mean, how can you be freer than in a democratic people's republic? Except that North Korea is neither democratic, for or from the people, and it's not even really a republic as the leader always comes from the same family.

Also, you have to consider National socialism in German is one word, not two. Linguistically, it suggests that this means socialism towards the nation, essentially turning socialism, which means from the state or nation towards the people, on it's head. Basically, national socialism means not that the state does things for the people, but that the people are supposed to do everything for their nation.

Finally, consider who the big backers of the nazis were: They were all big corporation bosses, not exactly the people who would back socialism. They did so because the nazi platform was patently anti-socialism and pro-corporations: unions got outlawed, wages frozen, worker rights eroded and companies could basically do as they please.

So no, the nazis were anything but socialist!

I guess the difference would be allocating resources and support depending strictly based on need rather than race, like to an individual person based on how much they personally need it rather than whether they belong to a specific ethnic group, or to a district based on needs rather than the race of the people who live there. If that means helping a district that is mostly black, that's fine.

The state can only give what the state have gathered from the people first. 

Nazis was not socialists. However it is a trait in socialistic structured nations that the state is large compared to the sum of individuals in that country. 

Wouldn't touch this one with a 10ft pole eh? LOL. I really don't get the American's sometimes. When someone wants to be left alone, they barge in, in the name of freedom, yet when someone actually wants some freedom, they ignore them. Must be nice. Sometimes I wish I was born American.

At least you clearly understand and follow rule #1 to a T. Never fully admit guilt to them, and absolutely, never, ever, apologize to them. Nothing good for you will ever come of it.

Late to the party but I do not like the equity push. Equal outcome? Talent and hardwork play a huge role in outcome. People are not entitled to equal outcome. I'm not entitled to a Nobel Prize because there are more talented and harding working people than I am.

Equal opportunity should absolutely exist, but outcomes should vary. Work and skills should be rewarded.

And an un-level playing field drives motivation.  I dont work 50 hours a week for me, I do it to give my children an edge over the competition.  Equal outcome is de-motivating.  

Something that is true for individuals (outcomes should depend on decisions) don't generally apply to arbitrary groups/categories -- where different individuals within the group are making different decisions that should balance out on net in similar ways.

It makes sense (even if we assumed actual equal opportunity at birth, which would require no inheritance) for individuals to end up in different places. It doesn't make sense for arbitrary socially constructed groups -- like race for this to be the case, without considering some lurking variable(s) that applies generally to individuals in that arbitrary group. 

We should really want equality between arbitrary groups even if we don't think individuals should have equal outcomes, because that means we are on the right track with regards to equal opportunity. Being born into arbitrary group #1 shouldn't have a strong effect on the decisions you can make when compared to being born into  arbitrary group #2.

It is okay to suggest that we tolerate the inequality of opportunity that is inheritance to promote motivation (or long-term time-preference if you will) but there is a point where only prioritizing that just means society isn't equitable in any sense, including equal opportunity. There should be social institutions that allow one opportunities to fast- track past the decisions or luck of one's parents. Otherwise you have the opposite effect where motivation and productive capacity is stifled due to lack of opportunity inherited by the decisions or luck of others.