The general rise of everyone's standard of living under free-market capitalism, not the universal egalitarian poverty under socialism, is the ideal.
Will Bunch's article points out something most commentators have missed. The difference between Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney on the issue of redistribution of wealth is one of degree, not of principle. Neither is consistent: Mr. Obama is less inconsistent than Mr. Romney; only Marx is fully consistent on this point.
That the government should redistribute wealth is based on the premise that those who have more are obligated to those who have less. Some of us have the opposite premise: that each individual has the right to his own life. Consequently, we believe that the sole proper purposes of government are to run the police, the military services and the law courts.
Both presidential candidates follow the essence of the Marxist principle. "Redistribution" is a Marxist idea; so is "redistribution light."
I, and others who share my view, intend to vote for Mr. Romney, not because he is good, but because the less consistent practitioner of a wrong philosophical position will be less harmful in the next four years. We hope to find better politicians in the future.
Ronnie partially right
Re: "You gotta be a 100% smug jerk to diss the 47%," Ronnie Polaneczky, Sept. 20.
Ms. Polaneczky, with regard to your article, you did get one thing right: Mitt Romney's father was a refugee from Mexico and he was on welfare relief that our great country provided. His father went on to be successful and got off welfare, right? He didn't stay on and milk each and every one of us who works two jobs to feed our families, does the right thing, pays taxes, patronizes our local stores, buys U.S.A. products, etc. One more thing: Mr. Romney is being served and eating good food and drinking first-class Chateau "Whatever," but I'm sure that there is a lot of serving going on in the White House. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. Remember your buddy has been in the Oval Office for the past four years. He is the one who has the 47 percent slaving!
Janice Di Joseph
Less than credible
The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections contacted me several weeks ago to witness another execution, and I have been questioning Terry Williams' credibility ever since.
As a criminologist, I read that Williams was not isolated and alone, as so many victims of sexual abuse are, making them extra easy as prey to pedophiles. I wondered where the adults who were coaching Williams in high-school football were, and why they were not approachable for Williams to disclose to them his abuse. I also wondered why the same adults who assisted Williams to go to college were not informed by him of what happened to him years before.
It is this sequence of events that make Williams less credible to me. Here he was, surrounded by caring adults, encouraging him to pursue higher learning - why didn't he tell someone what was done to him? Even if he felt ashamed, there must have been someone to notice if Williams was "acting out" his anger.
In answering these questions, I have no doubt that Williams should remain incarcerated. Unless someone provides some proof other than memories, I would not feel that his death accomplishes what the penal code warrants.
I want to hear from Williams himself, not his lawyers. I want Williams' family to come forward and admit that they failed to protect him while he was the football star and college prep. I'm not reading this anywhere, and until the public has this information, then no one should blame Gov. Corbett or the corrections personnel for their decisions.
Celeste A. Morello
Smile or not to smile
A simple solution exists for the problem of not being able to smile in N.J. driver's-license photographs, since smiling apparently confuses New Jersey's sophisticated facial-recognition system ("Keep a straight face," Daily News, Sept. 20).
Simply take two photographs: one photograph with a neutral expression for the facial recognition database, and a second photograph with whatever expression the driver wants to be printed on the license.
The fact that such an obvious solution has eluded the N.J. Motor Vehicle Commission implies that it isn't competent to fight driver's-license fraud.