I tend to agree with this although libertarians will disagree, and strongly in some cases, with the underlying moral principles and concepts of justice liberals have to support their concept of rights.
I tend to think that, at least in the eyes of constittional law, that the biggest moral relativists of all, are conservatives (at least those who are unabashed majoritarians).
I'm not really sure but I think you can at least get a sense of the power from the comparable bench testing that gets done on sites like Anandtech, Tom's Hardware of perhaps a few I don't know of. In the absence of an explanation from a techie, that could help.
I'm the same way about computers. I've never built the system myself but I've picked out the components and will never buy a pre-made. You save at least $1,000 with higher end parts.
It won't lead to that. The courts stopped defending freedom of contract in the 1930's, but even so, there is nothing that suggest that one's right to contract should allow someone to incur massive negative externalities that could destablize a system. I'm not fully comfortable making those arguments, but we have very fresh observations of the sorts of things that can happen (i.e. deleveraging).
I'm not a fan of putting this in the hands of bureaucrats, but I think there's enough expertise out there to provide enough guidance to make what will be necessary changes. As it is, a lot of investors are already looking to get changes to the rules made.
Sidebar here: I spoke to a former colleague yesterday who was on the mortgage origination side at a major CMBS shop and his response about the ratings agencies with respect to how people were able to get away with all this stuff was, "we had them by the balls". In doing so, sellers have destroyed whatever goodwill and trust has been built throughout the years.
E.D.,
I don't how much "modal monopolization" corresponds to my version of how things happened, although the point about "too big to fail" is duly noted.
Not much I disagree with, if anything. As far as the question of freedom of contract, my answer is "systemic risk". Actions deemed rationally individually when exercised collectively can greatly undermine our system. We just saw this phenomenon occur so I don't understand why Salmon posed the question in the first place. The answer is remarkably simple.
I'm a libertarian so we don't necessary have the same affinity for democratic process as liberals and conservatives seem to (at least when the outcomes of those processes favor their pet causes). 50% + 1 is never legitimate on the basis that it is 50% + 1. As such, I have no clue where you're coming from.
It will be interesting to see how gay marriage opponents attempt to “defend religious liberty” (as they put it) without attacking the entire concept of anti-discrimination laws.
Good point. It seemed to me that most of the cases in question at the link I posted fell under the rubric of existing anti-discrimination law.
Paul H.,
...and don’t try to tell me that you and, I guess, Andrew Sullivan posting valiantly about “but, gasp, that’s a threat to religious liberty!” will have any effect...
Moreso, I thought the situation with firms like Blackwater in Iraq was that there was no legal body that had jurisdiction over them, at least initially perhaps due to the contract with the U.S. government.
I'd have to look that up, but I remember Marty Lederman making that point over at Balkinization some time ago.
I understand the mixed feelings as well. Personally, if people could just live and let live, we could save ourselves a whole lot of trouble. Unfortuneately, that's wishful thinking.
This is not only nonsense, it’s dangerous, foolish nonsense that should worry gay marriage advocates. These rulings can be overturned by judges as easily as they are made, and they all but guarantee reaction such as Prop 8. It’s thanks to these judicial decisions that anti-gay-marriage language has been codified in the state constitutions of so many states.
Nonsense? I can apply 19th century legal traditions (through underlying principles) to this argument and reach the same result the court did (I'll make this into a larger post hopefully soon). Of course, those whose minds are too focused on the rights issues and not focused on traditional state police powers issues won't see things the way I and most classically liberal legal theorists view things.
When there are enough of these rulings under the belt at the state level, the federal courts will have more than enough precedent to apply heightened scrutiny at the federal level under current Equal Protection jurisprudence per the 14th Amendment. When that happens, justice will be done once and for all and there will never be enough for a federal marriage amendment.
It looks like heightened scrutiny is being applied - the opinion cites Footnote Four in perhaps the only way that libertarians can possibly approve with respect to the protection of discrete and insular minorities.
Paul's views on the Constitution, especially with respect to unenumerated rights and the religion clauses put him in the conservative camp as far as I'm concerned.
I'd like to think that I know a few things about the libertarian understanding of the Constitution, and Paul's views don't come close to it aside from his belief in the doctrine of enumerated powers.
His views on the protection of unenumerated rights (as well as church-state issues) but him in the conservative camp. No self-respecting libertarian should agree with him.
Aaron, there was a debate that was held at the Cato Institute maybe two years ago and the subject was Terror and Civil Liberties. Andrew McCarthy and Bruce Fein debated one another. I didn't agree with many of McCarthy's views but I thought he presented his position very well. I thought the perspective he brought to the debate with him being a former prosecutor insightful.
He may be a conservative but he's both consistent and principled. I remember when some idiot McCain supporters accused McCarthy of McCain Derangement Syndrome for having the audacity to suggest the McCain may not be the best chance conservatives to get bonafide judicial conservatives elected to the bench. Given McCain's spotty record, especially with McCain-Feingold, he had ever reason to worry.
Please understand that my wanting to see the credit markets thaw has nothing to do with wanting to see the sort of credit markets that fueled the spending boom restored. I don't think that will happen and the declines in consumption will be followed by flat or slow growth as things stabilize.
Some of what you may want to see may happen naturally as savings rates increase (which they'll have to do absent another asset bubble).
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Weekend League Round-Up!!!”
At least someone finally sent some nihilism my way.
What, was my Somalia post not funny? ;)
On “Justice claims are moral claims.”
I tend to agree with this although libertarians will disagree, and strongly in some cases, with the underlying moral principles and concepts of justice liberals have to support their concept of rights.
I tend to think that, at least in the eyes of constittional law, that the biggest moral relativists of all, are conservatives (at least those who are unabashed majoritarians).
On “The Torture Memos”
We have an adequate system despite what the previous administration thought.
"
^^^^ What he said
On “I’ll Take Getting the Econ Crisis Wrong for $2,000 Alex”
No, it's the Community Reinvestment Act!
On “tech bleg”
I'm not really sure but I think you can at least get a sense of the power from the comparable bench testing that gets done on sites like Anandtech, Tom's Hardware of perhaps a few I don't know of. In the absence of an explanation from a techie, that could help.
I'm the same way about computers. I've never built the system myself but I've picked out the components and will never buy a pre-made. You save at least $1,000 with higher end parts.
On “quote of the day”
Nihilist!
On “even this ship needs steering”
Jaybird,
It won't lead to that. The courts stopped defending freedom of contract in the 1930's, but even so, there is nothing that suggest that one's right to contract should allow someone to incur massive negative externalities that could destablize a system. I'm not fully comfortable making those arguments, but we have very fresh observations of the sorts of things that can happen (i.e. deleveraging).
I'm not a fan of putting this in the hands of bureaucrats, but I think there's enough expertise out there to provide enough guidance to make what will be necessary changes. As it is, a lot of investors are already looking to get changes to the rules made.
Sidebar here: I spoke to a former colleague yesterday who was on the mortgage origination side at a major CMBS shop and his response about the ratings agencies with respect to how people were able to get away with all this stuff was, "we had them by the balls". In doing so, sellers have destroyed whatever goodwill and trust has been built throughout the years.
E.D.,
I don't how much "modal monopolization" corresponds to my version of how things happened, although the point about "too big to fail" is duly noted.
"
Not much I disagree with, if anything. As far as the question of freedom of contract, my answer is "systemic risk". Actions deemed rationally individually when exercised collectively can greatly undermine our system. We just saw this phenomenon occur so I don't understand why Salmon posed the question in the first place. The answer is remarkably simple.
On “Ack! Activist Legislators Thwarting the Will of the People…”
Dave S.,
I'm a libertarian so we don't necessary have the same affinity for democratic process as liberals and conservatives seem to (at least when the outcomes of those processes favor their pet causes). 50% + 1 is never legitimate on the basis that it is 50% + 1. As such, I have no clue where you're coming from.
"
It will be interesting to see how gay marriage opponents attempt to “defend religious liberty” (as they put it) without attacking the entire concept of anti-discrimination laws.
Good point. It seemed to me that most of the cases in question at the link I posted fell under the rubric of existing anti-discrimination law.
Paul H.,
...and don’t try to tell me that you and, I guess, Andrew Sullivan posting valiantly about “but, gasp, that’s a threat to religious liberty!” will have any effect...
I'm too humble for that. ;)
On “The Business of Conflict”
Mark,
Moreso, I thought the situation with firms like Blackwater in Iraq was that there was no legal body that had jurisdiction over them, at least initially perhaps due to the contract with the U.S. government.
I'd have to look that up, but I remember Marty Lederman making that point over at Balkinization some time ago.
On “Gay marriage in Vermont”
Nathan,
I understand the mixed feelings as well. Personally, if people could just live and let live, we could save ourselves a whole lot of trouble. Unfortuneately, that's wishful thinking.
On “The Limits of Secularization”
Matoko,
A theory of judicial review that defers to democratic majorities so long as the rights involved are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
Progressives ought to know it. It's their handiwork.
"
I can think of at least one secular reason to oppose striking down SSM bans, but that's about it.
On “The notion of judicial activism.”
But if you’re going to claim the ruling is undeniably good, I want to see some reference to how the decision was reached.
Forthcoming.
On “It’s just those damned activist judges again, making trouble for the rest of us….”
This is not only nonsense, it’s dangerous, foolish nonsense that should worry gay marriage advocates. These rulings can be overturned by judges as easily as they are made, and they all but guarantee reaction such as Prop 8. It’s thanks to these judicial decisions that anti-gay-marriage language has been codified in the state constitutions of so many states.
Nonsense? I can apply 19th century legal traditions (through underlying principles) to this argument and reach the same result the court did (I'll make this into a larger post hopefully soon). Of course, those whose minds are too focused on the rights issues and not focused on traditional state police powers issues won't see things the way I and most classically liberal legal theorists view things.
When there are enough of these rulings under the belt at the state level, the federal courts will have more than enough precedent to apply heightened scrutiny at the federal level under current Equal Protection jurisprudence per the 14th Amendment. When that happens, justice will be done once and for all and there will never be enough for a federal marriage amendment.
On “Yep, the times are a changing…”
Mark, if one of the commenters at Volokh is correct, unanimous decisions in Iowa are typical. I'm about halfway through the opinion.
"
It looks like heightened scrutiny is being applied - the opinion cites Footnote Four in perhaps the only way that libertarians can possibly approve with respect to the protection of discrete and insular minorities.
"
I agree with both of you. I'm starting to get in the meat of the opinion. I've seen Lawrence cited a couple of times, which is always nice.
On “Oh give me…”
Nihilist
On “Guest Post: Philip Primeau”
Matoko,
Paul's views on the Constitution, especially with respect to unenumerated rights and the religion clauses put him in the conservative camp as far as I'm concerned.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=317
I'd like to think that I know a few things about the libertarian understanding of the Constitution, and Paul's views don't come close to it aside from his belief in the doctrine of enumerated powers.
His views on the protection of unenumerated rights (as well as church-state issues) but him in the conservative camp. No self-respecting libertarian should agree with him.
On “New Deal Originalism?”
Aaron, there was a debate that was held at the Cato Institute maybe two years ago and the subject was Terror and Civil Liberties. Andrew McCarthy and Bruce Fein debated one another. I didn't agree with many of McCarthy's views but I thought he presented his position very well. I thought the perspective he brought to the debate with him being a former prosecutor insightful.
He may be a conservative but he's both consistent and principled. I remember when some idiot McCain supporters accused McCarthy of McCain Derangement Syndrome for having the audacity to suggest the McCain may not be the best chance conservatives to get bonafide judicial conservatives elected to the bench. Given McCain's spotty record, especially with McCain-Feingold, he had ever reason to worry.
I defended him on that in a previous blog life.
On “Conservative De-Nihilism”
You're all pathetic nihilists but not as pathetic as my kind of liberaltarian nihilist. Damn you all...
On “A Critique of the System, or: A Fool and his Money….”
Please understand that my wanting to see the credit markets thaw has nothing to do with wanting to see the sort of credit markets that fueled the spending boom restored. I don't think that will happen and the declines in consumption will be followed by flat or slow growth as things stabilize.
Some of what you may want to see may happen naturally as savings rates increase (which they'll have to do absent another asset bubble).
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.