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.