Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site frog.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!tdh
From: tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: market value in law
Message-ID: <317@frog.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-Jan-86 20:55:33 EST
Article-I.D.: frog.317
Posted: Thu Jan  9 20:55:33 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 13-Jan-86 17:55:29 EST
References: <374@umich.UUCP> <28200442@inmet.UUCP> <2664@umcp-cs.UUCP> <312@frog.UUCP> <381@umich.UUCP>
Organization: Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA
Lines: 34

>>> Yes, but it seems to me that the current practice of the courts in this
>>> respect is very un-libertarian.  That is, I would think that a libertarian
>>> regards an individual as the best authority on the value of his own life.

>> The value to himself, perhaps.  Value is relative to the
>> valuer, and values have no objective measure. 

> Thank you for ESTABLISHING my point!

No.  Current conditions and the fact that values have no
objective measure do not imply that the current practice of
the courts in this respect is very un-libertarian.  If
damages need to be assigned, criteria for damages need to be
designed in view of the lack of objective measure.  You are
not at that point dealing with a trading relation; the
reversed rankings of traders (each valuing what the other
has more) have no bearing.

>> But in legal matters, it is sometimes necessary to assign a value to
>> something.  (Unfortunately, this is abused, as in taxation
>> and eminent domain.)  

> Or as in janw's scheme.  No?  Why is it that libertarians forget their
> libertarianism at the most convenient moments?

Specificly what inconsistency are you alleging that I hold?

> Fed up,
> --Paul V. Torek						torek@umich

Then take some time to finish digesting, eliminate the waste
to make room for more, and dine again.

				David Hudson