[praptak]

"This same logic, if we allow it to be applied to the deficit, could be applied to other things."

There are legitimate reasons to discern between the deficit and those other things. Most law systems are based on a small set of core values which are deliberately made hard to change, i.e. made part of the supreme law.

I believe that the (preventing of) deficit has the characteristics shared by those core values: there is a consensus that it is bad (especially in the long term) and yet there's strong temptation to create it for the short term benefits (buying votes.)

[hnsmurf]

I don't disagree with you, but a lot of people feel the same about marriage. A lot of people (not me, btw) feel that this is a Christian country and it's antithetical to our founders' beliefs for gays to marry and yadda yadda.

The point I'm making is that everyone has a different idea of what those core values are.

[maxharris]

Just because people differ on moral values doesn't mean that a properly discovered moral code can't or won't be objective. For example, people differ in their understanding of physics (and often seem hopelessly wrong), but mechanics is what it is. Just because some people don't get it yet doesn't nullify or change physical laws.

The right way for anyone to figure out what their core values should be is to apply reason. Dedicated, hard-core Christians feel a certain way about a lot of things, but they ultimately base their conclusions on faith, which is the antithesis of reason.