[derosa8]

Libertypunk, here is my two cents:

(1) It appears you are struggling over the question of whether there exists OBJECTIVE right and wrong. By OBJECTIVE, I mean “independent of human opinion.” There is no point in quibbling over SUBJECTIVE right and wrong. By SUBJECTIVE, I mean “dependent upon human judgment or opinion.”

(2) Either OBJECTIVE right and wrong exist or they do not. If GOD exists [the God of Christianity, Islam, or Judaism], then OBJECTIVE right and wrong certainly do exist. If GOD does not exist, then OBJECTIVE right and wrong do not exist.

(3) Regardless of whether OBJECTIVE right and wrong exist, humans are hard-wired to behave AS THOUGH they do exist. As Dr. J alluded to above, “ALL” people live their lives as though things are OBJECTIVELY right or OBJECTIVELY wrong.

(4) Even if OBJECTIVE right and wrong do not exist, it has been agreed upon by society to behave as though certain things are OBJECTIVELY right and wrong. Undoubtedly, this is linked to what makes us feel good [physical and non-physical] and what causes us pain [physical and non-physical]. This intuitive sense of justice has made morality an essential aspect of society, and those societies that disregard it will not last very long.

[derosa8]

Thanks! Here is one helpful link I found just from googling: http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-4/22-doctrine-of-equality-of-states.html

[derosa8]

Thanks for the recommendations. This definitely seems to be one of the doctrines that has truly killed the constitution’s original intent

[derosa8]

Thanks for the response Dr. Gutzman!

[derosa8]

Don’t worry Ramlajh, it’s not as depressing as it looks. Liberty is always the answer. The alternative to a “monetary system with inherently deflationary features” is an inflationary monetary system that breeds the boom and bust and crony capitalism we have rampant today.

Also, this 40 page or so essay is right on point. http://mises.org/books/deflationandliberty.pdf

[derosa8]

Thanks Professor Herbener. I like the “burden on the experts” idea, since the alternative would mean that some experts get to coerce the population when they feel their ideas are better.

Solid points.

[derosa8]

Unfortunately, the current U.S. situation makes things a bit sticky because

1) The Federal and State governments are already heavily involved in licensing and sanctioning marriage.

2) A Federal law passing “Marriage equality” would allow homosexual couples to marry in any state. Those with same sex attractions would probably argue that this makes them more free. However, it would also bring about other mandates for public education [with regard to sex ed, family life, etc.]. Also, it might bring about coercion of businesses with regard to other matters [e.g. a photographer was forced to take wedding pictures of a same sex couple].

3) What is truly the best policy for the U.S. regarding this issue? I honestly don’t believe a Federal Amendment would be a good way to proceed. Perhaps, it should just be left to the states? That then invokes the problem of whether the people of the state will get to vote or if judges of that state will just decide for the state.

4) It certainly seems like the mess comes from having the State so entangled with marriage in the first place.

[derosa8]

Ramlajh, this is a common objection to commodity money. The objection boils down to this, “Steady price deflation [a decrease in nominal wages/prices] will crush those who have debt because they will be paying back their loans with money that is worth a lot more than it was when they took out the loan.”

In current U.S. society, deflation would cause widespread default on debt obligations. But there is no reason to believe that lenders would not negotiate partial defaults with borrowers as to avoid not getting paid out at all.

Bryan makes a solid point above. In current society we expect inflation and make borrowing decisions based on that expectation. However, if there were to be a change to commodity money, then people would expect deflation and those expectations would be factored into the interest rates of loans.

[derosa8]

Thanks for the response Dr. J. Decentralization definitely seems to be the only approach consistent with liberty. It’s just sometimes odd when I see libertarian type lawyers arguing that centralization is good e.g. the 14th amendment and incorporation checking the power of the states.

But good question to ask about the U.N. for sure. Thanks for the comment.

If anyone else has info or comment specifically regarding forced sterilizations in NC or other things of that nature, please add your two cents!

[derosa8]

Also, as far as your remark, “Why wouldn’t banks simply renegotiate mortgages to relieve part of the debt homeowners who are likely to continue paying back on new terms?” — is it in the banks’ best interest to do that?

[derosa8]

Thanks for the explanation Professor Herbener. So, would steady deflation be the natural state of an unhampered market economy?

And if so, it seems that this is not always the case if one looks at Price Inflation numbers from the 19th century [which I realize is not an unhampered market, but thought because it is a gold standard it should have that effect]. Here are the inflation numbers:

http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-gold-standard-did-not-prevent-price.html

[derosa8]

Thanks Professor Herbener!

[derosa8]

Got it Brion. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the country didn’t change its mind 80 years later right? As you say, we recreated the union. Is it possible to show whether or not incorporation was intended during the “ratification” of the 14th amendment?

[derosa8]

Thanks Dr. J! Makes perfect sense, and is a nice brief response as well.

[derosa8]

Thanks Dr. J! Certainly an interesting perspective.

[Author]

Posts