<Leaving aside the implication that the only way any liberals give assistance to others is through the government, and that all conservatives support private charities which don't benefit either their own group or groups like them...

My apologies for making a mistake I seem to make quite often: lumping liberal citizens in general with liberal politicians and pressure groups. The former are often found in the front lines of private charitable efforts and volunteer groups (along with conservatives). The latter, with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter building houses and some soup kitchen photo ops, aren't usually quite as forthcoming with their own time and money.

More often, though, individuals have money because someone else (Mom or Dad) had it first.

Nowadays, this is actually quite rare, although I am sure this myth comforts many people who are not millionaires, who believe that they are not rich because of their own virtues. These people tell themselves that millionaires are rich because they got it from someone else, stole it from the "public," cheated someone somehow, or were just unreasonably lucky. To have to consider that millionaires may have been people just like them who have gotten where they are by working harder or being smarter, leads some people who are not rich into directions of thought they'd rather not go.

Most of America's millionaires did not have wealthy parents. 91% received no share of any family business; 81% have received no trust-fund or estate wealth; more than 80% inherited less than 10% of their wealth; more than 50% have had no inheritance at all; and more than 90% believe they never will receive an inheritance. Over 75% have never received a family gift of $10K, and nearly 50% never received any college tuition from family. People with confidence often rise to wealth, while similar people who believe themselves locked out will never be affluent. [Thomas J. Stanley, "The Millionaire Next Door."]

Even the self-made must usually have the help of many people who work for his company.

Of course he has their help. He pays for it too, and, it should not be forgotten, created the jobs in the first place.

His company, perhaps with his own direction, seeks to defeat the competition, and in doing so puts the competitors' workers on the street. He then has had their help too, though not the kind they were happy to give.

I must admit, this is a new one on me. Accusing an entrepeneur of wrecking the employees of his competitors is, in my opinion, really starting to reach. Forgotten is the apparent reason he is beating the competition: providing the public (don't they count?) with a better service at a better price than the competition is. And it's not like the competitor's employees are sent out to drift to their deaths on ice floes. Many of them may end up working for the more successful company--possibly at better wages.

The rest of your post has a lot of good insights, although blaming competition for being competitive is hardly a sign that there's something wrong with the system. Most of today's jobs didn't exist in 1900, and most jobs that were around in 1900 aren't around now. This kind of turnover is essential to real growth, otherwise we'd all still be subsistence farmers.

The search for social justice is full of this. It's a seesaw. It achieves balance every so often, but it usually needs adjustment. We need one now. But let's not jump off and let the other kid fracture his skull on the macadam in the fall, hmm?

I'm not looking to cut the welfare and assistance system off at the knees. Only idiots make proposals to stop programs like Social Security in their tracks, or to cut benefits to those already deep into the program. I'm just looking for that "adjustment." I'm looking to start slowing the race towards collectivism and socialism, and hopefully start steering back towards individual rights and economic freedom. There are lots of ways to start. Giving young people more options on Social Security for their eventual retirement is a good beginning.