If you trace the history of that capital to a violent past, such as slave owners or government eviction of natives or violent suppression of people's rights or

If you trace the history of that capital to a violent past, such as slave owners or government eviction of natives or violent suppression of people's rights or unfair distribution of wealth by the government or redlining, ... is it still fair? If fairness is a concern, one would seem to be led, at the very least, to want to wipe the slate clean for every new individual; no transference of wealth or privilege from one generation to the next. Only self-made people, self-made by above board behaviors, nothing morally or legally questionable. Then sure. Since that has nothing to do with the actual distribution of wealth in the world, saying it is only fair seems an inadequate justification. In general, I have always thought the idea is that successful investors can invest successfully and so giving new capital to such individuals leads to further successful invested in ventures, enriching society further. The same thing goes here. Living individuals have been successful at living, which usually requires great effort and skill by both the individual and the community, and so why not give a bit back to further that journey, a journey that enriches us all.