The same objective (or subjective, take your pick) morality that discourages robbery-murder can effortlessly extend to the distribution of wealth in society. An objective moralist once said: "Render unto Caesar...". A subjective moralist could say: "whatever minimizes human suffering and maximizes human opportunities" which leaves policy-makers with a broad canvas.
Personally I don't think this is a particularly moral issue, except near the extremes; but even if it were, the answer isn't what you're hoping for.
How do you go from "it's no ones business how much wealth I accumulate or give to my children" to "anarchy"?
That's not what the OP said at all.
If we live in a free society then we should be free to do what we want to do, because otherwise we wouldn't live in a free society.
Any argument that justifies itself merely with "because freedom" can be used to argue for complete anarchy. After all, "rule" of any sort inherently implies restrictions on freedom. And if restrictions on freedom are inherently bad, then "rule" of any sort must be bad by definition.
> That or we stop pretending we live in a free society.
This is exactly what we should do. There is no such thing as complete freedom. All freedoms come at the price of restricting some other freedom.
yes, let's do that. we don't - there has never been such thing as a free society, and we don't live in one now. all society has rules - without rules, it's not a society anymore. Let's once and for all take away this absurd escape-hatch where one can avoid defending an idea on it's merits by claiming it restricts their freedom.
If we truly lived in a free society, we wouldn't have estate law at all - wheover kills you should simply claim all your property.
What about amassing as much stuff as possible selling controlled substances and brokering crime?
If you want society completely out of your business, you're going to have a hard time.
They are treated fundamentally different in law, economics, and philosophy.
And taxation is also not the only parallel one could draw. For example, limits on the usage of you property is also highly regulated in various ways. Usage and ownership are very closely related.
There are tons of people who want exactly what you find so abhorrent.
For all you know I am a libertarian making the argument for a libertarian paradise.
Plenty of countries don't have an inheritance tax and aren't libertarian in the least.
The problem for me is not even that people amass such large amounts of money (do I think we should have some higher tax brackets on capital gains, sure) but that generational wealth creates power and economic structures which hurt the rest of us and ultimately impinges many more peoples’ freedom
The government is there, supposedly, for the benefit of a healthy society, not to enforce some capitalists' idea of what they think is fair. It is the same reason why the rules change for a company when it becomes a monopoly (there is that word again).
"I want society out of my business."
This sounds like the libertarian mindset that takes for granted all the benefits that come from being a business operating in a healthy society.
Although worker productivity has gone up tremendously over the past 40 years, nearly all of the incremental gains in wealth has accrued to a small fraction of the population. Yet that form of unfairness doesn't ruffle the people who think taxation is theft.