The whole bottom 2/3 of your post I largely agree with. But it also veers off-topic of the issue of inherited wealth. I'm not criticizing private ownership, rather the non-economic transfer of it. I totally get the impulse -- I want to give my children the advantages they need, just like everyone else.

But I also recognize that this creates a tremendous hazard of unearned privilege. We have to acknowledge the fact that it allows us to tip the scale in favor of our own offspring -- and against those of the less successful. And when I consider the fact that the less successful often had less successful parents, I'm confronted with the reality that success is inseparable from unearned privilege in a society where there a large intergenerational transfers of capital.

To critique a couple of your specific points:

> Because money is not a self-renewing resource [...]

But it is. For a large enough fortune, you can easily live off part the interest, and let the rest compound. If your family tree grows geometrically, eventually the fortune runs out, but who cares at that point? Already, it's been wasted on a couple generations of people who lucked into it.

> the well-off do risky things like give some teenagers $100k [...]

I'm not criticizing investment. If there were no inherited wealth, there would still be excess capital in the hands of living people that needs to be invested. And the wealth of the deceased could be put towards investment in a whole bunch of possible ways.

> if we truly believe someone is a genius who outputs unparalleled ideas, granting them a multi-generational monopoly [...] actively discourages those geniuses from contributing more for the remainder of their lives.

Totally agree :). Applying capitalism to capitalists. Crazy idea!