Elizabeth Warren chose not to pay a voluntary higher tax rate, which is an official option in Massachusetts.

No one takes that option, now, do they? But Warren — the Harvard lawprof who's trying to wrest Teddy Kennedy's Senate seat out from under Scott Brown, a Republican — has been lambasting Brown for voting against the so-called millionaire's tax.

As Warren deftly — and professorily — put it: "I paid the taxes that I legally owed. I did not make a charitable contribution to the state." Yeah, who expects anybody to make a charitable contribution to the state?

The state is all about compulsion. It's a crisp, cold force that says you owe, and we will punish you if you don't pay. So you do exactly that (if you're reasonably competent and rational). There's no warmth and love left over. If you're feeling charitable, you go looking for something more specific upon which to lavish your love-in-the-form of money. In fact, it would be kind of screwy to love the government like that, to put your love-money into the general pot from which the state pays all its general expenses, even if you want the people of the state to put you in a position to cause the government to rack up even more expenses.

Brown’s campaign called Warren a hypocrite for not checking the optional higher tax rate on her personal income. “The problem with running a campaign based on self-righteousness and moral superiority is that you had better live up to the same standard you would impose on everyone else," said the incumbent's campaign manager, Jim Barnett, in a statement. The Brown team said Warren earned over $700,000 in 2011, adding, “This is the sort of hypocrisy and double-speak voters are sick and tired of hearing from politicians, especially those who can't keep their hands out of others' pocketbooks."

Is it really self-righteousness and moral superiority?  Or is it a crisp cold calculation of what each person's share of the expenses is? You will be billed for that, and you will pay in a calm and orderly manner. There will be no love exchanged, no enthusiasm. It's just your share, that you owe, as determined by the democratic majority, who like to think that more is owed by those other people, those millionaires, and not little me. And it's not that $700,000 doesn't make Warren a good target for the democratic majority who would like to require more from somebody — somebody else. Obviously, she is. And I think she would agree!

When your vision is of the majority making the cold calculation and assessment, all you need to do to avoid hypocrisy is to pay what you owe... coolly and emotionlessly, with no extra gushings of love or cash.

Is Warren a hypocrite on the theory that she can't keep her "hands out of others' pocketbooks"? If she had a seat in the Senate and enough political sway, would she not vote to increase the tax rate for people who make $700,000 (or $500,000 or $200,000 or even $100,000)? I think she would. It's not politically wise to say that, but I assume she'd jack up tax rates if she could. In a calm, calculated manner. And everyone should pay their share, as determined by the government, to cover the expenses of the government, as determined by the government, in a Democracy where the people gave her — and people like her — seats in Congress.

There's no self-righteousness and moral superiority anywhere in this vision for America. It's just gray, bland exaction and compliance.