"Jonathan Ball" <jonball@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:PaFUa.121254$Io.10338990@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

> > Once you've made a choice, that you've
> > made the choice you've made is an objective fact.

> I didn't have to make the choice, and I can
> subsequently choose something else.

    Sure, but until you do, your previous choice stands and is as objective
a fact as the color of the sky.

> >     No, water is of value to a plant, really.

> No.  It's *necessary* to the plant, but only if humans
> want the plant.  Plants don't have "necessity" absent
> human want.

    Yes, the do. Their life has specific biological requirements regardless
of how humans feel about the plants.

> > That's the type of value I mean.
>
> It's meaningless.  You're trying to pull a fast one,
> denying that you acknowledge instrinsic worth when that
> is *exactly* what you're talking about.

    Intrinsic worth is worth independent of any particular valuer. Please
stop abusing the term.

> > By value, I
> > mean the objective ability to provide a benefit to some particular
thing.

> "Benefit" is a subjective concept.  The plant doesn't care.

    So if you think something benefits you, it automatically does?! Do you
honestly believe that?

> > then it would actually be a value to you,
> > whether or not you thought it was.

> Nope.  It's only "a value" to me if I think it is.
> Value in the sense of utility is always subjective.

    So you are arguing that people can always perfectly know (how?) exactly
how much something can benefit them and they're never wrong about this
estimation? If a person thinks he'd most enjoy being a doctor, then it must
be so that this is what he'd most enjoy?

    If you believe that the only way to measure value is by a person's
subjective sense of value, then this sense can never be in error (in error
compared to what?).

> > You are welcome to
> > use 'value' to mean however much a person happens to value something,
but I
> > mean actual use value.

> There's no such thing.  If it doesn't provide
> subjective value, it won't provide use value.

    So then it's never in a person's best interest to forcibly medicate a
person against their will, right? A person has a broken arm but doesn't
believe in doctors. It *must* not benefit them for a doctor to set their
bone, in your opinion, since they don't believe it will benefit them.

    You are off the deep end.

> >     So you would argue that if I think a certaint thing will benefit me,
it
> > automatically must?

> No, dummy.  Now, you're getting even MORE badly
> confused, between ex ante estimates, and ex post
> measurements.

    Take the case of the person with the broken arm who doesn't believe in
doctors for religious reasons. He will never credit the doctor who forcibly
sets his arm with providing him any value. So would you necessarily conclude
that the bone setting must not have benefitted him? That's sheer madness.

> I really don't believe you will ever get this sorted out.

    I'm clear on it. You're the one teetering on insanity.

> >     What if I value my life and I'm hungry. I think a steak is of
tremendous
> > value to me, but it's actually poisoned.

> Then your ex ante guess of value will differ rather
> drastically from your ex post measurement of "value",
> won't it?  Heh heh heh...

    Right. So my guess at how much value it had to me was wrong. And if the
poison is slow-acting and I never realize the damage was done by the steak,
I'll never correctly know the actual use value of the steak.

> > Isn't it clear that the steak is
> > actually not of value to me regardless of how much I think it's of
value?

> When are you asking, "isn't it clear"?  Are you asking
> that ex ante, or ex post?

    Suppose I never come to realize that the steak was poisoned and think
the ill effects are due to old age or some such.

> >     Huh?! The dictionary definition of 'labor' is 'physical or mental
> > exertion'.

> That's not an economic definition.

    Umm, right. If you say so.

> >     If you're talking about "value", I've always been clear that I'm
talking
> > about use value.

> There's no such thing, apart from a subjective evaluation.

    That's insane. That would mean that people must automatically know
things they can't possibly know. I get food poisoning, something I ate in
the past day had negative value, but I don't know what. So must you argue
that nothing does or everything does?

> >     What that "labor" is "physical or mental exertion"

> Yes.  That's not a usable definition in the context.

> > and "value" is "ability to provide a benefit"?

> That's not a usable definition in ANY context.

    You're just cracked, I'm sorry, I can't put it any other way. Imagining
doesn't make it so, perhaps some day you'll learn that.

    DS