I did. It's the same simplistic bullshit you always see from conservative "think tanks" (lobbying firms) whenever someone makes the point that libertarianism and feudalism are essentially the same. The article you link isn't quite "I want to shrink the government down to the point where I can drown it in the bathtub" but it's damn close.

Let's cut through the bullshit and get to the grit, shall we? Because let's be honest - you linked to a 600 word essay that's a mealy-mouthed refutation of 100 words of purity. A little flencing is in order.

"Warren argues that it is only fair that the rich give back to the community...Warren's argument is wrong both on principle and in practical application." There's exactly one sentence in the middle there. It doesn't alter the basic premise: "Arguing that it's fair for the rich to give back to the community is wrong on principle and in practice." That, right there, is "I me mine."

"Warren alludes to an "underlying social contract." Well it's very convenient for her to discuss this contract, which none of us has ever seen but apparently she can interpret." Did you see this part? This is the part where the author says "Since Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau didn't write specific, legally-binding terms in their philosophy, their entire thinking is invalid."

"Even on Warren's own terms, we would have to say that the community collectively decides how much it will tax people in order to provide goods that benefit the community (such as roads, national defense, etc.)." Here's the part where we argue that if the public asks for something, the public always gets it... therefore, wait for it.... "So when the George W. Bush administration "cut taxes on the rich"...that was just as valid an exercise of the public's will as it will be if and when the Obama administration raises tax rates." Did you like how we started out by arguing "the public" and immediately jumping to "two presidents?" I'll bet you missed that.

"Warren is right: there is a widespread view that really wealthy people are very fortunate — that they have been blessed. And that's precisely why so many wealthy people give very large amounts of their fortunes to charitable causes." The rich shouldn't have to pay more in taxes, you see, because they might always give to charity. Charities like the PRC or, oh, I don't know, the Von Mises Institute. Or maybe, here, you can't make this shit up: "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." That's right - the rich shouldn't have to pay more in taxes because, you see, they have kids.

"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.

The whole pathetic argument is a thinly-argued screed for oligarchy.

Warren didn't attribute the quote to Churchill, by the way, because it ISN'T CHURCHILL:

"According to research by Mark T. Shirey, citing Nice Guys Finish Seventh: False Phrases, Spurious Sayings, and Familiar Misquotations by Ralph Keyes, 1992, this quote was first uttered by mid-nineteenth century French historian and statesman François Guizot when he observed, Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head. (N'être pas républicain à vingt ans est preuve d'un manque de cœur ; l'être après trente ans est preuve d'un manque de tête.) This quote has been attributed variously to George Bernard Shaw, Benjamin Disraeli, Otto von Bismarck, and others.

"Furthermore, the Churchill Centre, on its Falsely Attributed Quotations page, states "there is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this." Paul Addison of Edinburgh University is quoted as stating: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he have talked so disrespectfully of Clemmie, who is generally thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?"

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

"Guizot's influence was critical in expanding public education, which under his ministry saw the creation of primary schools in every French commune. But as a leader of the "Doctrinaires", committed to supporting the policies of Louis Phillipe and limitations on further expansion of the political franchise, he earned the hatred of more left-leaning liberals and republicans through his unswerving support for restricting suffrage to propertied men, advising those who wanted the vote to "enrich yourselves" (enrichissez-vous) through hard work and thrift."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Guizot

TL;DR - STFU & GTFO.