Quote from: witcher_sense on July 12, 2022, 04:27:32 AM

Quote from: reasonspace on July 11, 2022, 06:23:20 PM

By saying "aren't allowed", are you saying that I will use force on people who are mistaken? Because I've made no such claims. People are allowed and are often mistaken. They also pay for the consequences of their mistakes all the time.

You said the subjective theory of value is wrong because people are sometimes mistaken about value. People might well be mistaken about gold being valuable too, yet it doesn't mean that gold has no value now. For your theory to work correctly, we should assume that some things are inherently valuable in themselves, regardless of whether people value them or not. This claim does not stand up to criticism since, in order to prove its validity, we need the absence and presence of valuing human beings at the same time, which is an absurdity.

It doesn't follow that the fact that the subjective theory is wrong means you have to assume that things are inherently valuable in themselves (the intrinsic theory). It is a false dichotomy to assume that it's either subjective or intrinsic. There is a third choice: the objective. Value based on facts and a valuer.

Quote from: witcher_sense on July 12, 2022, 04:27:32 AM

Quote from: reasonspace on July 11, 2022, 06:23:20 PM

Quote

It may be true that gold is scarce. It may be true that gold has high stock-to-flow ratio. It may be true that it's hard to destroy. These are not the attributes that makes gold value. Gold is valuable due to its affect on the valuer, specifically, Man. Now, those attributes may make gold expensive (i.e., cause it to have a high price), but price and value are two different things.

Again, the same reasoning can easily be applied to bitcoin but you, for some reason, refuse to recognize that.

I applied the objective theory of value to gold. I am unable to apply the objective theory of value to Bitcoin.

Quote from: witcher_sense on June 23, 2022, 06:38:10 AM

Things without which humans can't live are, by definition, objectively valuable. But they remain objectively valuable as long as in abundance. Once these objectively valuable things become scarce, humans start to value them subjectively, basing their reasoning on current circumstances. For example, water in the desert is valued more than that in places near rivers with fresh water. The objective value of water always remains the same - it helps you quench your thirst - but the subjective value fluctuates considerably.

....

The price of water depends on many factors, but the main factor that commands the price is the scarcity or abundance of the thing in question. Water in NYC is more abundant than that in the desert, hence the difference in price. If it had been otherwise - water had been distributed equally among all places, and everyone had unlimited access to it - the price of it would depend on other factors.

It looks like you're conflating subjective value and price. These are two different things. Subjectivity (and objectivity) has to do with methodology. Value identifies whether something is positive for your life whereas price identifies the difficulty to acquire that value. I do think that price can be determined objectively based on things like scarcity and alternatives. But something should only have a price IF it is a value. If it is not a value, then any price assigned to it is unwarranted.