Of course, the reflexive response to this parody is that the money she intends to spend does not legitimately belong to the people she is taking it from. To which I ask the following question:
Which is a more legitamite way of acquiring wealth – by convincing a consumer that you have a product or service that is valuable enough to exchange wealth for, or insisting that someone must have a significant portion of their income/wealth confiscated and face imprisonment if they resist?
Quite a bit to wrap one’s mind around – especially if you found Warren’s reasoning sound (in it’s original euphemistic context of course). Perhaps this may explain the widespread acceptance of allowing an institution the privilege of initiating force (through forced wealth confiscation) against the very citizenry it claims to protect.
As participants in a free market, we would only buy or sell goods and services if both the buyer and seller felt they would be better off. If that is an immoral way of acquiring wealth, then I see no reason to think that confiscating that wealth for what you deem to be desirable is any better.