Inheritance

Because the argument was made wealth is entitled because it was earned through labor.

Transfers of wealth do not fall under that qualification. Thus, the argument of being entitled to wealth based on the fruits of labor cannot be used.

Wealth is wealth, and it doesn't matter how a person earned it. As easily or as hard it was gained, it can be taken away by the state.

Remember, no person lives as in individual as which he was able to earn wealth just by the works of that individual. Wealth is earned through the transaction of people, in the context of society/state.

what qualifies the familial bond to be stronger than the bond to the state?
--

Few things. You work for your family, but that doesn't mean those receiving the wealth earned it.

You're assuming your children are an extension of you, mentally and physically. That's not true. There is no obligation for familial heirs to support you.

--

you earned your wealth through the free market, where there was open competition of your services. that is how the entailment of wealth transfer was justified. the principles of the market assumes each person to be an self-interested individual.

on giving your heirs your wealth. that doesn't allow an open competition of your services. what had been an a self-interested transfer prior, is now a familial-interest. but given the context of how the wealth was originally attained (based on the principles of the self interested individual), rationality falls apart, and the person gives his wealth away. now this is to say. in a society that values the individual so much, a person can act so hypocritial.