One of the appeals of markets, as a public philosophy, is they seem to spare us the need to engage in public arguments about the meaning of goods. So markets seem to enable us to be non-judgmental about values. But I think that's a mistake.

The responsibility of political philosophy that tries to engage with practice is to be clear, or at least accessible.

My main quarrel with liberalism is not that liberalism places great emphasis on individual rights - I believe rights are very important and need to be respected. The issue is whether it is possible to define and justify our rights without taking a stand on the moral and even sometimes religious convictions that citizens bring to public life.

Whether you're a libertarian liberal or a more egalitarian liberal, the idea is that justice means being non-judgmental with respect to the preferences people bring to public life.

There are a lot of things that people learn and live through culture first, and politics comes afterward.

In a democracy there is a centralization of governmental power in a simple majority.

I honestly feel that if there is an important point of view, any member of the Congress party, any member of my Cabinet is free to raise issues and require reconsideration of issues. I think that's what a democracy is about.

I don't think it's wrong for companies to work with the government. What's important is being trustworthy and honest with customers.