Let's keep the larger picture in mind, here: we live on a finite planet with finite resources. Therefore the goal of any economy should be to effectively and efficiently make use of said resources -- to "economize." Embracing an economy which is built on the principle of increasing profits at any cost, especially environmental costs, is suicide on a global scale.

As a side note, the greatest and most creative minds on the planet (Friedman mentioned Einstein) were not inspired or motivated by profit. Curiosity and the pursuit of knowledge and creative expression are more potent motivators than any amount of money could be.

I've suspected this for a while. Every time computing efficiency increases, our lust for more powerful mobile devices increases by an equal measure. Battery life may even begin to decline now with all of these dual core phones being rushed out without much regards to power consumption.

- Understanding and addressing opposing arguments as they are meant to be understood is the only way to honestly defend one's own position. Attacking straw men or being categorically dismissive of certain ideologies advances nothing.

- For the very reason stated above, I played devil's advocate for an opinion with which I disagreed in order to represent it fairly (which you failed to do). That the argument falls apart is of no consequence to me, because it was never my point to militate it.

- We have completely different views of what is provocative or smug if you honestly feel offended by that last quote. Criticism and disappointment =/= provocative and smug.

- I called you an asshat multiple times. Well, again, sorry. Didn't think it would cut so deep with you.

Unless you want to crack this wide open again, futilely chasing up all the irreconcilable loose ends, then I think we're done here. I will no longer respond to concerns which I have already addressed.

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. Warren probably would not advocate a law which automatically took a portion of a parents' wealth and distributed to his children. Therefore, the author requests justification for Warren's claim that the wealthy should be forced to give back to the community. That force, in the form of a law, is (from a libertarian standpoint) undue coercion.

The analogy obviously falls apart under scrutiny (parents do not rely on their children, wealth will not be efficiently distributed, etc). However the basic principle is that this form of coercion is wrong. That is the point, and that is the assertion worth debating. Not the straw man you've been suggesting. It has nothing to do with wealthy people having actual children and therefore being exempt from taxes. That doesn't even make sense on a superficial level, because poor people have kids, too.

> But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along" - nowhere does she say "the government is entitled to your wealth"

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.

> nor does she say "you need to pay for a welfare state so that the indolent can continue to suck off the public teat."

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.

> So if you would really like me to talk about that more, apologize, asshat.

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. 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.

So, although I risk violating my second point in saying this (and possibly the first), 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. But I don't like resorting to personal insults, and I don't like making people feel like shit. I truly am sorry.

I'm calling it an analogy. It does not have to be clearly labeled as an analogy to actually be an analogy. The author does not have to have to explicitly say "To make an analogy . . ." or "Consider the following analogy . . ." or so on for us to make the logical conclusion that it is, in fact, an analogy. Why else would the author all of a sudden start talking about children in a political article? The fact that she continues the analogy for several sentences just means that it's an extended analogy -- call it an allegory then; that's probably a more suitable term anyway.

> If that's a metaphor, then the only way it works is if the parents are the rich and the children are the poor. I don't know which interpretation is more offensive: not-metaphor, as in "don't tax us, we have kids" or metaphor, as in "don't tax us, we're paternalistic towards the proles whose well-being we manage." Either way, it's not an argument of social mobility.

The purpose is to demonstrate the role of coercion in both models, not to provide an insulting metaphor of relations between the rich and non-rich. We both agree that the assumptions it makes are unrealistic, but that is beside the point.

> The reason Warren was prompted to make her statement is that "wealth concentration" has become a hot-button issue. Clearly, "pay it forward" has not happened. The core of Warren's statement is that wealth is not an individualist accomplishment, it is the outcome of a social contract. Further, that social contract is being shirked by those with wealth. "There is no coercion involved' is the direct cause of the wealth concentration we currently experience. Warren, I surmise, would encourage further coercion because the system as currently implemented does not "pay it forward."

We both agree on this. Had you written this to begin with instead of the inflammatory rant you did, this discussion wouldn't be happening.

> Would you like me to address it?

Preferably, yes. That would be useful in perpetuating discussion.

Am I mad? Fuck yes! Anger is a completely valid human emotion, and it is my personal natural response to your particular brand of asshole. I'm annoyed by your dismissive and patronizing tone -- I'll admit that. That does not, however, justify your attitude. There is a reason why it's customary to hold a certain standard of decorum in public debates -- to avoid needless banter like this.

That's all I'm going to say about that. Now, moving on:

> You say I've only made straw-man arguments. Illuminate them.

Again, we'll revisit the charity example:

> That's not an analogy. That's a "rich people have kids, therefore they shouldn't have to pay taxes" argument.

You have not explained why this is so. You took an analogy which mentioned children and somehow transformed it into that simple mantra which you keep repeating. There were no actual children being discussed, not even in the sense that the "poor" are the metaphorical "children". However you have taken this redefined version of the argument and attacked it. That is a straw man fallacy.

> You say I'm "outside the scope of my argument." Demonstrate why.

I was referring to the fact that you were leaving the boundaries of the proposed analogy. Here, you said:

> If you really stretch to make it an analogy, the analogy is "rich people have a paternal relationship with poor people, and without government intervention rich people have a history and tendency of promoting poor people to positions of power out of altruism." Which is a silly analogy to make. Because they don't. And never have, and never will. Unless there's a tax break in it for them, of course.

The analogy was only meant to demonstrate the role of coercion within the two models of wealth transfer. If, as Warren states, the wealthy are meant to "pay it forward" to the community which supports them, it is because it is a generally accepted social practice and not because it is federally mandated (as in the example of hereditary wealth between family members).

You exceeded the scope of the analogy when you made the quoted argument because you made an observation which, although true, does not actually break the parallels made in the analogy. One could also point to examples wherein the parents do not transfer wealth to their children. The point still remains: there is no coercion involved.

Now I'll go back to your initial reply to artifex to highlight more of what I'm talking about.

> "The final major principled problem with Warren's position is that the government gives the rich little choice in accepting the alleged benefits of its activities." Did you see that? We're now arguing that the rich shouldn't have to pay for infrastructure because they were never given the option of TURNING THAT INFRASTRUCTURE DOWN. No shit. Here's the elaboration: "And CEOs in Boise — who don't think they are at serious risk of an al Qaeda attack — don't have the option of rejecting the US government's "helpful" foreign policy with its tremendous price tag." That's right - if you don't agree with a government policy, you shouldn't have to fund it.

You didn't actually address this argument, you just ridiculed it.

Then there is this significant chunk of the article sub-titled "Practical Problems with Warren's Stance" which you didn't not address at all -- and it's no small piece, either. It is a central point which holds tremendous weight in the article in that it address Warren's quote directly.

No, of course not. That's what makes it an analogy.

> If you really stretch to make it an analogy, the analogy is "rich people have a paternal relationship with poor people, and without government intervention rich people have a history and tendency of promoting poor people to positions of power out of altruism." Which is a silly analogy to make. Because they don't. And never have, and never will. Unless there's a tax break in it for them, of course.

Of course not, and I agree. But now you're working outside of the analogy. Maintain the scope of the argument you'r making.

> No, but you sure are butt-hurt.

If by "butthurt" you mean "frustrated," then yes, I am. So? How is that relevant to anything? That's just you invoking the mentality of "u mad bro" in order to provoke an emotional response.

Moving over the baseless feeding of your ego, there's this:

> I have yet to insult you personally, yet so far you've accused me of straw-man arguments (without pointing out how or why they're straw man arguments), and called me a "holier-than-thou asshat."

So? What's your point? Did your high school English teacher tell you that an ad hominem is any attack against the speaker? In your own words, I am no less willing to "call a spade a spade." If you make a straw man argument, I will point it out. If you're an asshat, I will point it out. You made straw man arguments and you were kind of a dick about it. I am not ashamed to say that.

> Mostly what you've proven is that you're so offended by coarse language that you'll sling it willfully at anyone who dares to cross you.

Mostly what you've proven is that only you can use course language and that anyone else must be condescendingly scolded for it -- according to your egocentric "logic."

> I like it here just fine. And I will stick around, and I will continue to call a spade a spade, and I will continue to recognize that an attack against an idea is not the same as an attack against a person, even if everyone else has an extreme, pants-soiling inability to do the same.

And hopefully you will continue to accept that everyone else is also entitled to do the same, asshat.

> Besides philanthropy, another social practice is that parents take care of their children. Then, when the children become adults, they in turn take care of their offspring. This is exactly what Warren has in mind with her talk of "pay forward for the next kid who comes along." That's exactly what society expects of people, and that's what most of us do. Here again, we see Warren injecting the government into the mix, without any justification.

It is an analogy, you see -- a structural comparison of two like systems. When a parent bequeaths wealth to his child, there is no external entity which forces the hand of the parent to do so. It is merely a social practice. So to invoke the government in the role of "paying forward" wealth to future benefactors is an act which must be justified -- something Warren failed to do in the cited clip.

The rest of your rant is full of similar straw man attacks against an argument no one is making. Then you end it with a childish "STFU & GTFO" with full expectation to be taken seriously.

> Typical Conservative response - "you're not being civil, therefore your argument is invalid." You come in here trashing progressive tax and you will find my boot up your ass. I do not suffer libertarians, butt-hurt or not.

I am neither a Conservative nor a Libertarian. I am in fact a Liberal who supports progressive tax rates, but cannot stand willful ignorance, strawman attacks, over-simplified bullshit arguments, "Us versus Them" mentality or childish internet rants from holier-than-thou asshats with inflated egos.

I prefer to defend my arguments on their own merits instead of misrepresenting the opposing argument in a desperate effort to further some political agenda at any cost. Furthermore, I refuse to automatically align myself with people I agree with just because they're "on my side" even if they use deceptive and illogical tactics.

> Hubski is Reddit without the crowds.

Fuck that shit. If you want reddit, go back to reddit. Obviously the hive mind there is more suited to your purposes.

But this is a common practice in online forums. Why go to great lengths to say what has already been said well enough? Don't tell me you've never linked to an article you've felt is relevant to a discussion you've had in the past; I won't believe you.

Besides that, artifex went on to defend his stance throughout the rest of the discussion without referring to any other texts; it is clear that he has an understanding of the topic he is debating. This forgives whatever shortcut he took in raising the argument in the first place.

> Further, you offer them up offensively

That is completely your subjective response. Personally I found nothing inflammatory or offensive about that rhetorical question. It does not insult the proponents of said stance but rather the subject around which it revolves. Why do you feel offended by it?

> "Civil" does not mean "willing to permit grievous logical errors and inflammatory canards in the spirit of camaraderie." "Civil" means "don't shoot first."

In which case you are completely out of line. 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.

I don't really have anything substantial to add here; I just wanted to emphasize this point. It is common knowledge that a pathetically small fraction of government money funds education or infrastructure, especially when compared to the amount spent on military. With this understood, I find it unjustifiable to advocate a tax code which aims to funnel even more money (and thus, power) into a system which works against common interest.

That said, this whole arguments rests on the premise that a money market economy is necessary or desirable. I disagree with that premise, but that is another argument entirely.