The Constitution, a document proported to constrain government is governed, articulated into law, and enforced by the entity the Constitution was meant to constrain.
The entity that makes law is also exactly the same one that enforces the law, and do you really believe such an entity will ever enforce a law upon itself that actually constrains itself fundamentally?
Or will it selectively enforce laws that will extend itself beyond any constraint?
Do you expect you can bury evil with paperwork and bind the devil with his own rope?
That's because you can't get your mind beyond your decidedly limited definitions of the word value. You insist that "intrinsic value" is a fiction based on some implied reference to value that really is extrinsic (like desirability, market/exchange value, etc.,). Within that narrow but entirely false context, I would agree wholeheartedly: There is no such thing as intrinisc market value, or intrinsic desirability (to a desirable object), or any other such stupidity.
...If'n I was thinking along the lines of such narrow stupidities. Which I am not.
Wrong. Market value is determined each and every time a price is paid and a transaction is consummated. A single transaction may not reflect average market value - in the aggregate, but it is very much a part of the whole from which such an average is determined.Not true.That price will be its market value
It will be some PRICE a whole lot higher than HIS value.
You are missing something. Firstly, the seller's price is the ASK. Some will pay it, some won't. If the price is too high, more people will avoid it, shopping elsewhere or making substitutions. The seller has his own curve to deal with in that regard. There are limits to what he can dictate, and buyers in a free market are always free.That apple is priced to whatever the owner wishes it to be and he needs no calculator to figure it out (though he may use a calculator)(in that particular market, should you pay that price) times its intrinsic value
Secondly, a calculator by itself will show you a number - NOT what that number represents. If I punch in 1 (QTY) times .79 (PRICE = Ea. or Per lb.). I get $0.79 as a total. However, what the calculator does not say, and what is instead known or implied, is "1 OF WHAT?" "0.79 each OF WHAT"? Well, apples to dollars, naturally.
A calculator doesn't have a description column - the description is known, or implied, just as the UNIT of currency. But modern cash registers do. A Safeway receipt will imply nothing - it will actually itemize - and read 1 Golden Delicious Apple, $.79 per lb. .... $0.79
See? When you think "intrinsic value", just translate in your head, because "quantity times certain physical properties" are described by physical/mathematical "values". Those "values" exist completely independent of ANYTHING market related. If an apple wasn't for sale, or nobody wanted to buy apples, it would not cease to be "One Golden Delicious Apple, weight .3765 lbs." (and other properties which describe its intrinsic value).
No need to dig your heals in and try to force-fit a definition of value that was never intended. You aren't being charged a price for nothing - otherwise, why are you even there? You are being charged for:
(QTY X DESCRIPTION) X PRICE PER QTY = TOTAL PRICE (FOR A GIVEN THING OF A GIVEN QUANTITY)
OR...another way of saying the same thing:
(INTRINSIC VALUE=QTY X DESCRIPTION) X (PRICE PER QTY) = TOTAL
Now, you can dig in your heals, and lock onto a definition of value that doesn't apply and isn't intended. That would be your brain locked in its own cell. It would be like me saying, "I threw the ball 85 MPH", and you come back with, "You can't throw a ball. A ball is a dance!", to which I explain, "That's not the kind of ball I meant", to which you reply, "Like I said, a ball is a dance. You cannot throw it. Period. "
Last edited by Steven Douglas; 03-09-2012 at 05:59 AM.
If, or when, you face a judge in a court of law, your first objective should be to determine if the judge has proper jurisdiction. Ask the judge: "What binds your decision to the U.S. Constiution?""Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." - Pericles, 430 B.C.
Once upon a time everybody that swore the oath to be duty bound to uphold and defend the constitution purchased a penal bond which could taken from them if they disobeyed their oath. They do not purchase the penal bond anymore which makes them personally liable for their actions.Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
And you know,
Now that only works in a court of law that respects the law of the land. Current law is run by bankers. That is what we are trying to put an end to. That is what Ron Paul means when he says, "Obey the Constitution." A lot of people reject the Constitution but they shouldn't they should stand up for their rights, enforce the law, and work to make it even better.Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
This is one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. The opinion of the court was “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law; Clearly for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn‟t exist in law.”
The point is that the people who want self-governance must become actively involved in their governance. It is the job of the people to enforce the supreme law of the land.
If you wish to dialogue about this with physicists or chemists, their offices are down the hall.
Such a value is wholly irrelevant here.Market value is determined each and every time a price is paid and a transaction is consummated. A single transaction may not reflect average market value - in the aggregate, but it is very much a part of the whole from which such an average is determined.
The market works simply "Highest bid wins".
The iPad is coming out at $499. Do you believe the consumer of the first iPads will be paying $499? I know they will not.
The iPad3 was being sold at up to $1500 each for the first few weeks and I expect this will be no different for this product.
Didn't miss a thing.Firstly, the seller's price is the ASK. Some will pay it, some won't. If the price is too high, more people will avoid it, shopping elsewhere or making substitutions. The seller has his own curve to deal with in that regard. There are limits to what he can dictate, and buyers in a free market are always free.
I never said every transaction is completed.
Transactions that do not complete change nothing.
The buyer still has his money - as he had before the attempt.
The seller still has his goods - as he had before the attempt.
TrueWell, apples to dollars, naturally.
Not one bit.When you think "intrinsic value", just translate in your head, because "quantity times certain physical properties" are described by physical/mathematical "values".
What I see is that someone at Safeway placed a value of X on that item and quantified it in relation to money - it concerns me not one wit how he came to that value - whether using a Ouija board, rolled dice, or used some arcane calculation - but I do know he placed a value of that item a lot LOWER than the value he placed on money.
He imputed HIS value to that item
The buyer placed a value on that item, and again it concerns me not one wit how he came to that value - whether using a Ouija board, rolled dice, or used some arcane calculation - but I know he placed a HIGHER value on that good then the money in his pocket
And the buyer imputed HIS value to that item - and the value so imputed by the buyer and the seller are not the same at all.
There can be no such thing as an intrinsic value if it imputed to that thing, and that the imputing is completely different depending on who does it.
There are about 7 billion different values for that apple - one per person.
There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
- Milton Friedman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhugbnLi4PsQuestion: “You’re frequently an advocate for the Constitution. What are your thoughts of the Lysander Spooner statement: “But whether the Constitution really be one thing or another, this much is certain: that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”
Ron Paul: “I’ll tell you what: I don’t criticize Lysander. His point is very well taken, and someday maybe we will mature to that point. His claim was that if he himself didn’t agree to the Constitution, why should somebody in a remote body agree to the Constitution and he be pushed under it? It is a good idea, but under today’s circumstances, I have to work with the best that we have. Because who knows, I might have been an anti-Federalist at the time the Constitution was being written."
The Constitution is only valid upon those who signed it. At best you could stretch it to those who voted for it, or those adults who have taken an oath to it. This should not be in dispute. The question among those who believe in freedom is: how do we mature society to the point that it no longer feels the need for government overlords? Or, at least, no longer feels the need to force their form of government upon everyone.
Henry David Thoreau said something along the same lines at the start of Civil Disobedience:
Originally Posted by Henry David Thoreau
Last edited by enoch150; 03-09-2012 at 02:52 PM.
"Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
Ronald Reagan, 1981