Agree with you there.

> wealth is largely the product of appropriation of people's productivity

???

In a market economy, wealth accrues to those who solve people's problems the best.

It is only through business-government collusion that you skew the market toward cronies and incumbents.

> state monopoly on violence guarantees rights

In theory. But it doesn't really work that way. Hence, the estate tax.

For example, let's consider what I do, cancer research. In my field, lots of scientists and doctors work very hard to develop new therapies for treating cancer. At the end of the day, this results in a product that is covered by a patent, a form of property.

This property is owned by some very rich people who have never lifted a finger to do any cancer research or solve any problems; all they have done is own things. In this case, because of the specific form of property, they are able to make hundreds of billions in profits without having done any work other than the contribution of some capital. That is, literally, property ownership is the only contribution these people make to drug development, yet they accrue essentially all of the resulting wealth.

The extent of this accrual is a product of the specific forms of property that exist and how much they allow this sort of appropriation.

Every form of property is the product of government - property as we know it cannot exist without government help. For a practical example, until 2013 it was possible to own genes via patents, and about 20% of the human genome was under patent. There were companies that were entirely built on the fact that they owned certain human genes, e.g. Myriad Genetics, which made hundreds of millions of dollars off this. Then the Supreme Court decided this was NOT a form of property, and suddenly this possibility of accrual vanished.

This applies to everything we might think of as property - patents, trademarks, land titles, etc., they exist because of legal force guaranteed by the government.

Some of these property forms are extremely arbitrary measures that seem almost designed to produce wealth transfer (for example, granting mineral rights) to certain individuals.

In the case of cancer research, you sold your time to your employer for a fixed amount of money (maybe you had equity, but it doesn't sound like it). That was the end of the transaction for you. The investor took a risk and was rewarded for it, all within the current system, which is not a free society.

When you spend money on a consumer good, you're going to choose the product that works best for you, given your budget. For the same money, you will not choose a product you deem to be inferior. Thus, you reward the maker of that product with your dollars because they solve the problem better than the maker of the inferior product.

As for "appropriation of productivity," if you're alluding to the workers vs capitalists struggle from Marx, then I can't help you. I will simply point out that nobody in a free society is compelled to work for another. Thus, all salaries / wages / employment agreements are entered into voluntarily. There is no appropriation: each voluntary employee knows the terms of employment and agrees to them.

Ah, the plaintive cry of the college Libertarian. Of course people in our society are compelled to work for another; you cannot live without eating. You may not be compelled to work for a specific employer, but you are compelled to work, and in an economy where there is massive unemployment and wealth inequality, employees and employers are not on the same bargaining terms.

Let's put it this way: someone comes to you and says, "I have your wife in a secret location. Go and murder my boss, or you'll never see her again." You might accept this contract and we might call it "voluntary" since you agreed to the terms, but that's hardly a fair characterization of the situation. Power differentials matter, and they absolutely produce compulsion.

But noo, you enter into a contract voluntarily, it's not exploitation because you can leave your employer. Agh! Marx got it right on the money 150 years ago. It's incredible how the obvious escapes these misty eyed libertarians.

That is simply it true, and it baffles the mind how some people obtusely insist on that bunch of wishful baloney, pardon my bluntness.

So a capital holder/landowner simply buys stock/rents out a flat, and by essentially doing nothing but owning stuff he gets to earn a large amount of money while people actually doing stuff are rewarded as lowly as the market can squeeze them. How does this fit with your worldview of "money goes to those who work harder"?

By passing large sums of money from generation to generation, you end up with a class this won't apply to. It'll be the family of some relative long since past who once upon a time, solved some problem the best.

Why should I care if someone else inherited family money and doesn't have to work?

Inherited wealth must be invested continually to defend against inflation. That investment will continue to power the market economy, even if the holders of the wealth are not entrepreneurs.

This assumes that wealth is being invested correctly, and that money acts in some sort of neutral fashion, automatically flowing where it is most needed. In fact, money just shores up wherever there is some sort of place for it to grow.

It turns out that it is much easier for concentrated wealth to use games and tricks of the economic, financial, political system to make money grow than it is to actually invest it in high-risk areas that might provide stronger growth.

The more diffuse wealth is, the less this will be an issue.

Yes. Every dollar in the pocket of a trust fund baby is a dollar missing from an underfunded public school, a homeless relief program, a cancer research center, a library...