Let me simplify my post for you. You demonize intergenerational transfers by connecting them to 'bad apples' so to speak. You construct an exploitative example to describe your latent issues with such transfers. It would be akin to saying there are some bad muslims, so all muslims are bad. Hence my analogy that (surprise, surprise) offended you. Your problem is that either you are too naive to notice distortions of arguments, or much worse, you are fully aware and it is an intended manipulation in the present case on your part. I don't see anything inherently wrong with passing along your 'stuff' to your children. If they get a leg up, so be it. If they are accumulating wealth faster because of a headstart, there's an argument that they are actually a better steward of those resources than others (i.e., since it's growing). And then there's Darwin's law and all that. There is absolutely no validity to the notion that we are supposed to have equal paths in life. Equal opportunity is so nebulous that it is simply a great soundbite for mass audiences. Everyone can get to the same place in life, no matter with how much or little with which they started (in general, of course). At least in this country, that is. The biggest issue is not what resources they start with, but one of parenting. And there are certainly just as many horrible parents that are wealthy as there are poor ones. Since you aren't from the US, perhaps you have a hard time connecting with the notion of personal liberties which here in the US is kind of a big deal. So in a way, I can understand how you are getting to your argument against private ownership.