Take for one instance Obamacare.
Okay, we'll leave the rest be for now, but what? The fact is that you didn't give me enough information about your opinions to form an argument against you without a whole mess of assumptions, but we'll go ahead and try anyway.
I assume when you refer to "unlimited democracy", you mean democracy as rule of law by majority opinion, rather than the more general usage of the term used to refer to any system of rule of law that involves the majority of a nation's populace having the ability to vote, either on their leaders or on policy itself. If that assumption is wrong, please correct me.
Are you saying that Obamacare is an example of unlimited democracy? A law imposed through majority opinion and not filtered through elected representatives, corporate lobbyists, and courts? Otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean.
the fact that close to 80% of Americans reject evolution, and believe that humans walked around with dinosaurs.
Yes, large numbers of people are wrong about large numbers of things. So it is and so it shall be. How does this relate to whether or not the super wealthy are exploiting the system for their own gain, and whether or not this is a bad thing?
As for the other questions, about equal rights, you said that cited that anyone could raise themselves to the height of the 'aristocracy' (meaning plutocracy, as you insisted earlier), and implied that this right should be protected, although you did not say that outright.
You brought as an example many individuals who have proved that social mobility exists by rising to wealth and power from various positions on the ladder.
I say that those few exceptions don't change the rule: i.e., if you're born in poverty, you're far more likely to die in poverty, or at least near the level you started, than rise above it. And I say this is a direct result of our society, our government, and most importantly, our government's attitudes toward wealth.
If you are in fact arguing that democracy should be distorted by wealth to serve the interests of large corporations and a few billionaires over those of ordinary citizens...
I am not exactly a fan of unlimited democracy
(which is the only way I can interpret this in the context of the discussion, although I also do not agree with unlimited democracy, which is why I hoped to get you to tell me what limits you approved of)
...than Obamacare is a prime example of the opposite happening. A single-payer, government funded option would have been much more palatable than the current mandate to hand money to insurance companies. However, some of protections put in place to ensure that people can get care covered by insurance at all are certainly a step in the right direction. However, political dissent, backed by corporate opinion, has left us with a law demanding we give money to insurance companies.
At any rate, the question we're really arguing, is, "Should wealth grant greater influence on democracy than nonwealth?"
I say it should not. It is easy for the wealthy to perpetuate unjust laws which increase the influence of their wealth. It is difficult for a nonwealthy individual to pass laws which decrease the influence of the wealthy. This difficulty is an artificial constraint which impedes social mobility, which is in turn detrimental to society as a whole. While restraints should be imposed upon democracy (and are, through mechanisms such as republican government and a (nominally) fair judicial system) those restraints imposed upon democracy by the wealthy are not beneficial, as they cause harm to the nonwealthy to a greater extent than they benefit the wealthy.