[houndred]

So so long as I do a minimal amount of labour to change one product into another then it isn't exploitation?

What If I put a prettier label on it?

[mikema63]

he would still call it labor and dismiss any value of coming up with the idea of mixing them or creating a better label, but from what ive seen our arguments have ended up mirrors of each other substituting the words labor and ideas.

in the end what value you say something has can only be in relation to you, and any person or organization that is rating value is rating it in relation to them. there isn't any way to objectively measure value because all value is decided with a to what or whom in mind. price is a function of value but it isn't value itself, a seller sells at a price higher than the value they have for it and a buyer buys at less than the value they have for it, while this implies that in a utilitarian sense perceived value is higher according to all parties the main point is that value is perceived and not absolute.

i would point out that a money price represents all goods that could be bought at that money price.

edit: im a bit surprised by how quickly i left the original argument, i just have a lot of respect for the creation of ideas and was a bit riled up by how easily you were able to dismiss the great achievements of the human mind. sorry

[Someone5]

in the end what value you say something has can only be in relation to you,

That is objective value if the term has any meaning whatsoever. "Subjective" value would be value that is defined by someone other than you; or by a negotiation between yourself and others. Price is subjectively determined, but value is not, because it is inherently that own individual's valuation. No one else matters whatsoever. No one else's opinion has any relevance to the value of anything.

You can think that something is worth a certain amount, and I can think it is worth less than you do, and the thing will still have an objective value because your opinion of the thing does not impact my valuation just as mine does not impact your own valuation. We each hold to our own sense of value regardless of what the other thinks.

"Subjective" does not simply mean "varied according to each individual," it is an admission that other people's opinions matter--it is the suggestion that one person's opinion is no more important than another person's opinion. That is clearly not the case when it comes to value, where each of us can only ever value things by our own feelings alone. My opinion of a thing's value matters a whole hell of a lot more to me than your opinion of a thing's value. Your opinion of a thing's value will never cause me to adjust my own opinion of it's value. That makes it objective, if the term has any meaning whatsoever.

[mikema63]

you seem to not be using the same standards for what is objective and what is not.

objective data is measurable in standard units and must be universal, a liter of water to you must equal a liter of water to me and a liter of water to everyone else.

subjective is an opinion i like one color you like another, i prefer water you want soda.

value would only be an objective value if it was both measurable and universal, we must both be able to agree that something of value has the same value to everyone without deviation for it to be objective.

Price is subjectively determined

price is objectively determined, though it changes overtime somethings price is both measurable and universal a bottle of water will cost you a $1 a McDonald's to me and to you. my opinion isn't that it costs $1 it IS $1.

because it is inherently that own individual's valuation.

thats what makes it subjective, we disagree and its not measurable.

No one else's opinion has any relevance to the value of anything.

thats because its an opinion and opinions are subjective, subjective means its an opinion, if it were objective then it would be the same value for everybody.

You can think that something is worth a certain amount, and I can think it is worth less than you do, and the thing will still have an objective value because your opinion of the thing does not impact my valuation just as mine does not impact your own valuation. We each hold to our own sense of value regardless of what the other thinks.

it cannot be objective if thats at all true.

"Subjective" does not simply mean "varied according to each individual," it is an admission that other people's opinions matter--it is the suggestion that one person's opinion is no more important than another person's opinion.

thats not true at all, if im in pain then how much pain is subjective, it doesn't matter if you have the same injury and aren't in as much pain because the intensity of pain is subjective. other peoples opinions do not effect your own, that does not make whether or not i like a color any less subjective.

My opinion of a thing's value matters a whole hell of a lot more to me than your opinion of a thing's value. Your opinion of a thing's value will never cause me to adjust my own opinion of it's value.

for it to be objective we must, by definition, have the same value for it and be able to measure this value and anyone else measuring it must also agree to that specific value. for it to be objective it cannot be an opinion.

That makes it objective, if the term has any meaning whatsoever.

the term has no meaning when you use it because you aren't using objective with the same definition as anybody else, you aren't using objective properly, you've turned it into a nonsense word.

[Someone5]

objective data is measurable in standard units and must be universal, a liter of water to you must equal a liter of water to me and a liter of water to everyone else.

Hardly. There would be no reason to discuss "objective morality" if it was merely a synonym for "quantifiable."

subjective is an opinion i like one color you like another, i prefer water you want soda.

Subjective morality is more than that as well.

value would only be an objective value if it was both measurable and universal, we must both be able to agree that something of value has the same value to everyone without deviation for it to be objective.

No, that's a requirement for it to be universal and quantifiable. For it to be objective, it merely needs to be independent of external evaluation. Or, in other words, inviolate. If a person cannot give something a value different from what they feel it is worth, it is objective. If a person's idea of worth is determined by the people around them; if they are willing to adjust their own sense of value based on the feelings and opinions of others, it is subjective.

There is no other way to talk about objectivity that makes sense for ephemeral notions like value or morality.

price is objectively determined, though it changes overtime somethings price is both measurable and universal a bottle of water will cost you a $1 a McDonald's to me and to you. my opinion isn't that it costs $1 it IS $1.

Price is subjectively determined, but universal; when a store owner and I haggle over the price of an item, we are negotiating its price. We are establishing a price based on both of our opinions of its worth. That is subjective if subjective has any meaning.

thats what makes it subjective, we disagree and its not measurable.

You're confusing objectivity with universality. Something can be objective and not universal, just like it can be subjective and universal.

thats because its an opinion and opinions are subjective, subjective means its an opinion, if it were objective then it would be the same value for everybody.

An opinion is only subjective if you do not value it more highly than the opinions of others. The term subjective can be described bluntly as "feeling as if other people's feelings matter." In the case of haggling over the price, the buyer and the seller must both respect the opinions of the other enough to negotiate a common price; this price is subjective, but is also quantifiable and universal. That price does not change when a third party observes us haggling; they could record the amount that was actually paid. In the case of value, however, I can't see how anyone could ever value another person's opinion. The fact that someone else doesn't like something that I do like has no real importance to me. I don't care if they don't like it. The value I hold does not change merely because their opinion differs. If my sense of value were subjective, that other person's opinion would change my evaluation.

it cannot be objective if thats at all true.

It cannot be anything other than objective if it is true. You seem to be making a mistake here and assuming that because something is an opinion that it cannot also be objective.

thats not true at all, if im in pain then how much pain is subjective,

The pain you feel is quite objective. My description of your pain would be subjective. Self-assessment is objective.

it doesn't matter if you have the same injury and aren't in as much pain because the intensity of pain is subjective.

It's objective for you, it's subjective for others. Unless you are suggesting that your own pain is lessened by others thinking it doesn't hurt as much as it surely does?

that does not make whether or not i like a color any less subjective.

The statement "my favorite color is green" is an objective statement; regardless of whether it is verifiable, universally applicable, or quantifiable. It is also an opinion.

for it to be objective we must, by definition, have the same value for it and be able to measure this value and anyone else measuring it must also agree to that specific value. for it to be objective it cannot be an opinion.

For it to be universal, we must by definition have the same value for it. One might also use the term "quantifiable." You are incorrectly assuming that what is objective must be quantifiable and what is subjective must not be. That is clearly not a reasonable definition of the terms in the context of ephemeral issues like objective vs. subjective morality. I am presuming that we are discussing this in the philosophical context, right?

Objective is not a synonym for "factual", nor is subjective a synonym for "opinionated."

[mikema63]

Hardly. There would be no reason to discuss "objective morality" if it was merely a synonym for "quantifiable."

there is no reason to discuss objective morality because there is no objective morality, i'm a subjectivist when it comes to morality as well. of course thats a whole different argument.

Subjective morality is more than that as well.

this is a discussion about value, when we talk about subjective morality we are talking about what a person thinks is moral, morality is certainly more important than color preference but a subjective moral value is still an opinion.

For it to be objective, it merely needs to be independent of external evaluation.

objective data needs to be dependent on external evaluation, objectivity requires that it exist independent of what you think it is or ought to be.

No, that's a requirement for it to be universal and quantifiable.

it isn't objective if its not universal and quantifiable, things are only objective if they are, the speed of light is objective because you can measure it and its the same no matter who measures it.

If a person's idea of worth is determined by the people around them; if they are willing to adjust their own sense of value based on the feelings and opinions of others, it is subjective.

you are severely misunderstanding what subjective means, subjective isn't a group thing its an individual evaluation, the way your using it is not what subjective means.

There is no other way to talk about objectivity that makes sense for ephemeral notions like value or morality.

thats why their subjective, what were you trying to argue here?

Price is subjectively determined, but universal; when a store owner and I haggle over the price of an item, we are negotiating its price. We are establishing a price based on both of our opinions of its worth. That is subjective if subjective has any meaning.

price is a unit value, and its universal, other people can agree that $1 is a $1, the price of something is an objective measure of the cost of procuring it, thats what objective data is, its measurable and the same for everyone.

You're confusing objectivity with universality. Something can be objective and not universal, just like it can be subjective and universal.

you seem to misunderstand objectivity and subjectivity, for something to be objective it MUST be universal, an objective moral value must be moral for everyone in all circumstances, for something to be subjective it CANNOT be universal, it must differ depending on circumstances.

An opinion is only subjective if you do not value it more highly than the opinions of others.

opinions are always subjective regardless of whether or not you value yours more highly than anothers, you are changing the definition of subjective.

The term subjective can be described bluntly as "feeling as if other people's feelings matter."

when did empathy, respect, and low-self esteem become the new subjective. the term subjective is not that at all, its simply an unquantifiable opinion no more no less.

In the case of haggling over the price, the buyer and the seller must both respect the opinions of the other enough to negotiate a common price

they have to live with each others opinions but they most certainly dont have to like or respect their opinions, their each trying to get as much out of it as they can, and since a price is quantifiable its objective.

If my sense of value were subjective, that other person's opinion would change my evaluation.

again you are creating your own definition of subjective, that isn't what subjective means at all.

It cannot be anything other than objective if it is true. You seem to be making a mistake here and assuming that because something is an opinion that it cannot also be objective.

is not an assumption its the actual definition of objective that it cannot be an opinion.

The pain you feel is quite objective. My description of your pain would be subjective. Self-assessment is objective.

if its not quantifiable then its subjective, self-assessment is not objective if no one else can confirm that value.

Unless you are suggesting that your own pain is lessened by others thinking it doesn't hurt as much as it surely does?

only using your insane definition of objective and subjective would that even make any sense at all.

The statement "my favorite color is green" is an objective statement; regardless of whether it is verifiable, universally applicable, or quantifiable. It is also an opinion.

its subjective because its an opinion, thats the beginning and end of what subjective means, their are no opinions that can qualify as objective except in the sense of an unbiased opinion.

for it to be universal, we must by definition have the same value for it.

for it to be objective it must be universal, its quantifiability and its universality is what makes objective data objective.

You are incorrectly assuming that what is objective must be quantifiable and what is subjective must not be.

its not an assumption its the definition of objective and subjective!

Definition of OBJECTIVE
1
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world — Marvin Reznikoff> — compare subjective

Definition of SUBJECTIVE
characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal — compare objective

relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states

peculiar to a particular individual : personal <subjective judgments> modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident>

this is out of the Mariam-Webster dictionary, this is the actually definition of the words and the one that im using. this is what i mean when i say objective and subjective and its what other people mean when they say objective or subjective. you are the only one who defines objectivity and subjectivity as you do.

That is clearly not a reasonable definition of the terms in the context of ephemeral issues like objective vs. subjective morality.

that is actually what is meant by subjective and objective in a philosophical context, people who believe in objective moral values really do believe that a moral value is independent of circumstances and is the same for everyone at all times. i agree that it doesn't make sense to me but that hasn't stopped a great many people from believing that something is moral and immoral in a universal and quantifiable way, case in point would be the poster secret squirrel, hes a deontological libertarian, that means that he believes the non-aggression principle is a universal value and that no matter what the circumstances the non-aggression principle is an absolute. i believe that the non-aggression principle is a good way to run a society but is not and objective moral value.

Objective is not a synonym for "factual", nor is subjective a synonym for "opinionated."

objective (vs. subjective), nonsubjective
clinical, impersonal, neutral, verifiable, objective, accusative, concrete (vs. abstract)

subjective (vs. objective)
personal, prejudiced, unobjective, unverifiable

from synonym.com, factual and opinionated actually are synonyms for objective and subjective.

[Someone5]

there is no reason to discuss objective morality because there is no objective morality, i'm a subjectivist when it comes to morality as well. of course thats a whole different argument.

Your suggestion that it requires a different argument in its defense suggests that it is not the same time.

this is a discussion about value, when we talk about subjective morality we are talking about what a person thinks is moral, morality is certainly more important than color preference but a subjective moral value is still an opinion.

When we're talking about subjective morality, we're talking about what a group is willing to acknowledge as conditionally moral. Subjective morality is very much rooted in the idea that other people can have valid opinions--there are no other valid opinions but your own when it comes to value.

objective data needs to be dependent on external evaluation, objectivity requires that it exist independent of what you think it is or ought to be.

Let me put it this way; you are the only observer of your own opinion. If it is the same for you as it is for you, that makes it the same for all observers, because there are no others. Subjectivity is inherently dependent on others--namely on recognizing that others have a valid viewpoint.

it isn't objective if its not universal and quantifiable, things are only objective if they are, the speed of light is objective because you can measure it and its the same no matter who measures it.

The statement "my favorite color is green" is also objective. It is also entirely unverifiable by anyone else, who simply have to take my word for it.

"Objective" has different meanings depending on the context.

Let's look at the full definition of the adjective, shall we?

adjective
4.
being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
5.
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6.
intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7.
being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
8.
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

Definition #7 is the definition relevant to the objective vs. subjective comparison.

you are severely misunderstanding what subjective means, subjective isn't a group thing its an individual evaluation, the way your using it is not what subjective means.

Subjective is intensely group based. The only difference it has from objectivity is its claim that other people's opinions are equally valid.

thats why their subjective, what were you trying to argue here? :?:

That your definition of subjective and objective are wrong; you are using the wrong context.

price is a unit value, and its universal, other people can agree that $1 is a $1, the price of something is an objective measure of the cost of procuring it, thats what objective data is, its measurable and the same for everyone.

Price is subjective, because it is negotiated. Value must be objective, because none other than the evaluator can ever observe it.

you seem to misunderstand objectivity and subjectivity,

No, I'm not.

for something to be objective it MUST be universal, an objective moral value must be moral for everyone in all circumstances, for something to be subjective it CANNOT be universal, it must differ depending on circumstances.

What is subjective can sometimes be universal, but other times it is not. I admit that it is more commonly not, but it is possible--as is the case with pricing.

opinions are always subjective regardless of whether or not you value yours more highly than anothers, you are changing the definition of subjective.

Consider the root argument for subjective morality and continue to maintain that, please. The only difference that makes sense is the fact that subjective morality is negotiated and held in common, and objective morality is not; the rest of it is mere sophistry.

when did empathy, respect, and low-self esteem become the new subjective. the term subjective is not that at all, its simply an unquantifiable opinion no more no less.

That's not the "new" subjective. That's the old subjective. Perhaps they've decided to change that around in philosophy today?

they have to live with each others opinions but they most certainly dont have to like or respect their opinions, their each trying to get as much out of it as they can, and since a price is quantifiable its objective.

That's respecting the others opinion. If it weren't, the buyer would simply throw down the money he thought it was worth, and the seller would shoot him if it weren't enough.

again you are creating your own definition of subjective, that isn't what subjective means at all.

I am using the traditional definitions of objective vs. subjective as they relate to moral arguments.

is not an assumption its the actual definition of objective that it cannot be an opinion.

If it is the same for all observers, it is objective, yes? Well, you are the only observer of your own opinion. Hence your own opinions are objective. They only become subjective when you adjust your opinions based on the opinions of others--when you accept that other people's opinions matter.

[mikema63]

The labor theory of value and the subjective theory of value aren't moral arguments, their arguments about scientific truths, discussing why things have value is an economics arguments and is divorced from morality.

I suggest each of us getting a trusted poster to read the last few posts and pass judgement on who is using subjective and objective correctly, we really aren't getting anywhere as we are now.

[Deutschmania]

No, you did not just invent this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

Liberal socialism, also known as utopian socialism, refers to currents of socialist that predate (and in some cases, such as the anarchist example, postdate) Marx's divorce of socialism and liberalism.

As Lightman posted, you did not just invent the idea of liberal socialism. And, I tend to think of myself as being a liberal socialist, as I support peaceful free association, over forced collectivization, and state capitalism. anti-revisionist Communists will tend to condemn me for in words commiting social reformism. But even some Communist regimes had implemented market, and democratic reforms, namely Kadar's Hungary. I'm not myself an anti-marxist, in my opinion, I'm just not a hardline ideologue, and I do not wish to favour one system of thought over another, when it comes to social theory.

[DinodudeEpic]

I can't believe this lasted past me leaving this forum.

But anyways, I wanted to say several things.

Firstly, I apologize for my ignorance previously. I knew that I did not invent mutualist economics or the idea of direct democracy. However, I thought that I had a uniquely non-anarchist combination of the two ideas. (Of course, there probably is someone with similar ideas.) Now, I was wrong is calling my ideas "Liberal Socialism" as it already refers to this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_socialism.

That and the pretentiousness of claiming that I formed an ideology, however ignorant I was of it, has really gnawed at me at occasions when I look at the past. I should've really separated having a unique political platform that is based on multiple ideologies from having a new ideology.

Really, I think the problem was that I had ideas and no way to label them as a whole with a word for ease of conversation.

However, I do have to say that my ideas have taken a more civic-nationalistic turn along with being more radically direct-democratic and (con)federalist to the point of advocating something akin to a more moderate version of cantonalism (A movement in Spain that sought to form a confederation of city-states). I also consider myself to be more in support of a market economy than I was when I made the opening post.

Basically, sorry for my previous errors. I hope to start making more productive posts in this forum.