1. I disagree with your perspective because of the arbitrary and vague nature of it. What this minimum standard of living? Who decides this? Who pays? why? and by what authority?(the answers posing their own set of problems)All these are solved/answered by surrogate decision makers often far removed from the circumstance in question, and who suffer no recourse should things go badly. Placing the decision making power in the hands of those with the most to lose insures not only better decision making, but accountability.
The disdain for inheritance and wealth in general, for whatever reason, are emotions and extremely subjective varying from person to person. This alone makes them a shaky foundation for any policy or ideology by which one would govern/guide a society...
2. I am concerned solely with opportunity.
If a race is run, fairly, with all the rules known in advance and without any hindering/beneficial conditions for a competitor. It wouldn't matter to me if the same person won the race every time. As long as the race was fair.
The idea that the fastest runner should be penalized for being faster or the others helped because they are slower not only undermines the entire race, its (IMHO) immoral, and completely unethical.
The exceptions to the fairness of the game, those receiving windfall gains, from their parents, or those who find themselves in poverty through no fault of their own, are viewed as acceptable cost. Worth the benefit of a fair system with lots of mobility and opportunity.
The question I toy with when giving liberals the benefit of the doubt is -is it necessary to compensate for the unequal starting points people occupy?-
