> the basic argument is that the availability of private college/lawyers/your-favourite-resource favours the rich and powerful, and that you can only get actual equal access for all to education/trial-defense/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/good level of the service for everyone, including themselves).

I don't get it. Can you actually argue in court that because a particular outcome would be "unequal" in terms of access, that the services in question shouldn't be available to anybody? As far as I know, that's never been a viable argument. You have to satisfy a much stronger criteria for this sort of thing, that it's an actual public ill. Inequality, as far as I know, has never, by itself been sufficient to prove that.