Libertarian morality is as follows: According to the principle of homesteading, each man owns his own person, and he therefore owns the things which he produces – those parts of nature hitherto unowned and which, when mixed with his labor, are transformed into productive entities. The only moral ways for these entities to change ownership are voluntary trade and gift-giving.
Those who are productive with their property become responsible for more and more, since they can afford to buy up additional property with their earnings. The overall productivity therefore, will rise.
Figure 1. If only consent was respected in more than sex. Marx's response was that it's not really consensual since the worker is bound to unwanted labour as a means of survival. The libertarian morality of "you still can't force someone to pay you more than your labor is worth" isn't satisfactory to non-libertarians, so see the section on welfare for a discussion of the provision of basic necessities in libertarianism, as well as the one on minimum wage. Either way, there are currently thousands of economic restrictions that are nowhere near essential for survival.
Yes, most of the very rich have acquired their wealth through unfair means, be it through unfair government action like intellectual property, subsidies, bailouts, low-interest loans, etc., or violence, historic or current. Regarding pure socialism/communism, a war to fully redistribute the riches of the wealthy will likely never happen, and cause great devastation if it did.
In a libertarian system, even if everyone started out equally wealthy, some would end up richer than others, as people of differening competency and diligence should. But libertarianism makes things fair even if some are very wealthy.
One who owns a lot of resources can rent or loan it to others without much additional cost to themselves, and make a percentage return. But by making them compete with other rich people, assuming resources are plenty, the ones that offers it for the lowest price, ie., makes the closest to zero profit, will get all the customers.
As for why even partial wealth redistribution isn't preferred in a libertarian society, note that the company that provides the customer with the most value for their money wins. The riches of a wealthy person are assets to be used to finance their business, even if turned into houses or jewelery, since they can be liquidated when needed. Taking these away punishes the best company, which is counter-productive. If a lot of it is turned into stuff like parties and luxury vacations, the company isn't being very efficient, and will likely be replaced quickly in a free market. If not, that means people who can afford it are willingly transferring their money by overpaying due to their affinity for the entity, in which case libertarians would argue they have every right to spend that fairly earned money.
Besides the libertarian argument that one has the right to transfer their property to anyone they want, including their family, note that children have been raised and molded by the parent from birth, knowing that they will inherit the family business. As weird as it might seem, simply consider them a continuation of the dead parent; they will now continue administering the business. Then the same arguments as above for respecting private property apply.

Articles by others on the same topic (1)