Dear Shri KRS, Greetings!
I appreciate your detailed narrative of where you are coming from. I will also provide a narrative of the principles I hold dear. But first, a few points of clarification.
You have not labeled me in a "hurtful" way at all. My point is only that one can't go about labeling other people and then say I myself don't want to be labeled. One can't say I will discount Paul Krugman or Frank Rich, but Dinesh D'Souza is good.
I label some folks as 'liberal', 'conservative', 'extreme left' or 'extreme right' based on their ideology. Since I do not think I follow any ideology, I do not want to be labeled with any of the 'standard' labels. If one comes up with truly a label that would describe my positions, then, I welcome it. By the way, I only said that Dinesh's article is well reasoned out and should be part of a discussion. I never said 'he was good'. Again, I discount Rich and Krugman as much as any conservative columnists - I just do not read opinions. If you had cited a column by either of these gentlemen, I would have told you where I agree and where I do not - but we are discussing an article by Dinesh. Looks also like you might have missed my point, despite my additional posting on this. My only questions again about the article was, 1) where does he connects to the 'birther' issue, and 2) why his idea is beyond discussion? Again, his words need to be evaluated, not his ideology.
In this context, we all have our own system of values that matter to us. Mine are common good, justice, innate respect of everyone, and such. Based on these values, we make choices, after all we can't have 'em all. In this choice, after having followed Dinesh D'Souza for a while now, it is more than likely that I am not going to gain any value reading him. Perhaps I am wrong in this one instance, anything is possible, but since we all have to ration our scare time resource, I think in the long run I am better off spending my time reading other things than Dinesh.
But, Professor. By quoting and passing judgement on Newt for saying something, don't you take any responsibility to read the underlying article? I don't blame you for not reading Dinesh (like me), but I somehow think that once you commented on someone saying something, then you are indeed obligated to read the entire context behind it, to be intellectually honest. I am actually surprised that as an intellectual, you would not analyze this to it's conclusion!
My values: I believe humans are social animals. By and large we can't live by ourselves -- not many can be like Ted Kaczynski. We have to learn to live in a community. When we live as a part of larger society, there is a tension between individual rights and his/her obligations arising out of the benefits he/she derives from the society. A balance needs to be struck. In this balance, the rights of the individual cannot supersede that of the society as a whole, nor the rights of the society be allowed to stifle the aspirations of the individual.
Beautifully put and I agree.
We are now required to define where society's needs end and the individual's rights begin. Our differences perhaps can be traced to where we draw this line. I think Thomas Jefferson gave us a kind of boiler-plate definition of this in the declaration of independence, namely, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe that governments, in as much as the best of them are of the people, by the people, and for the people, must endeavor to make it possible for the governed to be able to secure the fruits of these ideals. My politics flows from this philosophy. I don't care whether an individual is conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican, I support those who support and work for the fulfillment of these principles.
Again, I have to agree.
The prerequisites for pursuit of happiness include, food, shelter, right to a job with living wage, quality education, decent health care, reasonable leisure to enjoy the fruits of labor, et al. These must be the ingredients with which our goals and objectives must be developed. As a society, we must allow capitalism to flourish only to the extent these goals are advanced. In other words, capitalism cannot be our goal, it can only be a means.
This is where perhaps we differ. My interpretation of Jefferson's words mean that the playing field should be the same for all to pursue their happiness. I do not believe that it is a 'right' for someone to expect from their government - food, shelter, education, healthcare, and job. As we all know, if we give our children a sense of entitlement, they most likely would not succeed in life. Same with the society. Unless people have the motivation to make these things happen by themselves, the society would not succeed. I am not here talking about the truly destitute who can not play in a level field. There should be a safety net for them, always.
No capitalist can exist without a market. For the capitalist to make profit, he/she needs a market. Since an organized society readily offers this market to the capitalist, he/she must pay for this privilege to the extent they use this system. The more you benefit from this system, the more is the share of your obligation to sustain the society. This is the principle behind the widely accepted principle of progressive taxation. During the time of FDR, the top marginal income tax rate was 94%. Now, Obama wants it to go back the rate under Clinton, 39.6% from 35%, and he is getting derided as a socialist.
This where we totally disagree. You talk as if all capital investments succeed. Perhaps one in 10 flourish. There is risk involved. This is why, the progressive taxation does not make any sense. You are killing the risk taking behaviour that creates jobs by it. Unless everyone pays their dues to using the 'commons' as you phrase it, then there will be those who will get a free ride. Why should this be so? I think the flat tax concept (may be with some progressiveness built in to it) resolves this. I think, anyone who earns, irrespective of the amount, should pay some tax. Otherwise there is no buy-in in to the society.
Another wonderment for me is the case of what the so called individualists call "death tax". If one believes in true individualism and merit to determine one's destiny one would expect them to champion a 100% estate tax. But the same people, for whom individual merit is the holy grail bar none, are the ones wanting to completely eliminate the estate tax. The sad fact is, this tax is easily avoided by the ultra rich, a case in point is that of estate of George Steinbrenner, billionaire owner of the New York Yankees Major League Baseball franchise, paid not a cent in estate taxes.
As you correctly pointed out, this affects the middle class more than anyone else. This is against the average human nature. One is driven to succeed and save money for one's children. If the government takes away this - and to me this is really odorous on its philosophy (why should the government tax twice?), what is the incentive. This also violates the basic principle of one's right to property. I almost consider this a communistic policy where individual rights are trampled.
I believe a capitalist must pay the true cost of using the commons, such as the ready made market an organized society offers, the natural resources, the airwaves, and the environment, but they seldom do. The more you use it, the more you should pay for it. The sole responsibility of governments is to look after the welfare of the society as a whole. A capitalist's needs are to be supported only to the extent it is beneficial to the society as a whole. With Republicans in power, this will never happen. With Democrats also it will not happen, but may be there is a slim chance.
As I have said, Capitalism and Free Enterprise are the only effective TOOLS to create wealth known to man. Let us not treat the system as usurpers - they take risks, succeed, provide jobs and create wealth for the society. Innovation is possible because of their drive and entrepreneurship. But, as I have said, you need to have regulations. I do not see the Capitalists and Free Enterprise as enemies of the society. Instead I see them as a requirement for a society to thrive, and the trick is to make them thrive with proper rules to safeguard the interests of the society.
I do believe the U.S. constitution is a remarkable document. Its promise was more serendipitous rather than willful. After all, the rights the founding fathers wanted to protect were that of the man of property -- not that of a common man, not of women, not of anyone other than white. We need to look at the document in its proper perspective and not go overboard in reverence. The promise is still being realized, as is in other societies far removed from the U.S.
Here again, we are coming against our disagreements with a progression of a society and not evaluating the past with today's norms. Of course during those times, a landowner was considered as the responsible stake holder. So, initially that's how the constitution was framed. But the genius of it was that the founders knew that things may change in the future and provided the way. Yes, I do go overboard with reverence and I won't apologize for it.
Dear Shri KRS, I don't want to go point-by-point with the rest, it is just an exercise in going in circles. I hope I have given a synopsis of the principles I value.
Fair enough - I won't press.
Thank you ...
.the republican party has become top heavy with reagan loyalist occupying plum jobs in party as well as in administartion of senior & junior bush.an oil man was lobbied and placed as president and he pleased his backers from saudi arabia and other oil producing nations lobbyists.saddam was dangerously messing with usa and finally was hunted like a rodent.job done,lets move on.the pipeline from afghanistan must be laid now,so that sunoco can start business as usual.come novemeber democrats shud win all seats otherwise,we are doomed as a nation again 
