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.