>Parents == the wealthy

>Child == the tax-funded community (roads, libraries, USPS, Welfare, SS, etc) >The central point here is that when a wealthy parent bequeaths money to his children, it is a voluntary action. So. By your own read, of this interpretation of a 3rd party article, the author of the 3rd party article is saying "the rich should not be forced to pay for roads, libraries, USPS, Welfare, SS, etc. because they're as naturally inclined to pay for these things as parents are naturally inclined to give their children money." Not only is that insultingly paternalistic, as I've said for hours, it's also laughable. The notion that public works would be kept alive by charity in the absence of taxes is fallacious by inspection; people donating money to "the government" is a rare enough occasion that it usually makes the news. Never in the history of mankind have taxes been voluntary, and never in the history of mankind has a culture flourished on charity. Charity has always been the discretionary largesse of a populace that has already supported its infrastructure based on compulsory taxation; compulsory taxation dates beyond the Code of Hammurabi. Here's a bunch of ancient Egyptian tax cheats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wells_egyptian_peasants_ta... Now - you can make the argument that in Rand's magic valley, everyone will pay their own way and bootstrap themselves to success. But we don't live there and neither did Ayn. Elizabeth Warren is simply pointing this out. >I thought that is was a given that we were talking about a progressive income tax code, in which case, the government would be entitled to a fraction of a person's income. So now you're arguing against taxes? >This, too, is a straw man because the article doesn't argue that, either. It simply contests the idea that the wealthy are due a debt to the community which supported them. The article argues that the wealthy do not owe anything to the community from whence they sprang. It does not argue it successfully. >This is what I don't understand about you. Before you were adamant that I return to the actual discussion at hand and stop making this about you. Now you want an apology. Before you were busy calling me six different names and refusing to have any sort of discussion. Now you're continuing to call me names and wanting to hear me elaborate on the stupidity of the article. The only consistent part is you calling me names, while also insisting I'm the rude one. I'm just rubbing your nose in your hypocrisy. >To be completely honest I did actually considering adding an apology to the end of my previous message, but decided against it because I thought (1) you would think I was being insincere, (2) if I attempted to justify the purpose of the insults in any way we'd get tied up in more pointless bickering, and (3) I didn't think you wanted one. I pointed out no less than three times that you're the one being uncivil. It took demonstrating just how childish and uncivil you were being before you even considered attempting to be civil. Again, I didn't start this fracas by attacking anyone - I attacked an article. Meanwhile, I've been called an asshole, an asshat, an egoist and (most amusingly) a bigot for attacking the logic of a facile Libertarian hit-piece. And somehow, you think me attempting to bring things back to the discussion at hand is at loggerheads with me wanting things to be civil? I've said it before, and I'll say it again. My behavior is no different from anyone else's, I'm just better at it. I don't attack, I counter-attack. And I've had lots of practice. >I do apologize for calling you an asshat or an asshole -- but not for calling you smug or intentionally provocative because I honestly believe you were. It didn't call for the harsh language I used, but let's not pretend that it was unprovoked. Oh, come now. "intentionally provocative" is a bizarre read for what can only be viewed as an antagonistically dismissive comment. What I wrote was intended to shut down debate on the points under discussion - and the best you've come up with is "the rich will make up in charity what you take away in taxes" which is a laughable argument. You're only still having this discussion because of a serious case of high dudgeon - you say you're a "a Liberal who supports progressive tax rates" yet here you are saying that the idea of taxation = coercion is an "assertion worth debating." I'll say the same thing to you that I said to Artifex - if you don't want the discussion to dive into the gutter, don't steer it there. What sort of response do you expect when you write: >Your response to the article in question is so weakly constructed and your manner so abrasive that I did not think it worthy of any serious critical response when I first read it earlier today. I was seriously disappointed because I thought hubski was better than that. ? Yet I'm the smug and provocative one.