So what gives value to stuff? What is value?
Value is a subjective preference, based on personal virtues.
Value is not inherent in the thing that is perceived as valuable, but in the person who finds it valuable.
What is valuable to me, might not be valuable to someone else. Different people value different things differently. Therefore value cannot be in the thing, but in the people who value things.
Hard work does not imbue value into stuff. Just because you worked really hard, doesnāt mean youāve made something others will value. It is the desirability of stuff that is value, regardless of how they came to be. And that desirability is always in the eye of the beholder.
Just like love is not a property of the person whom you love, but an involuntary emotion you feel towards that person (based on your virtue and the virtue of your beloved), the same is true for value of material stuff: it is not present in the things you value, but in you who finds those things valuable. In fact, love, respect, and value are almost the same emotion, the difference is only in the strength of the emotion and ethical purity of it.
When I say a brand new suit is valuable to me and Iām going to buy it, what I actually mean is this: I would rather have this suit than the money Iām going to pay for it. And the tailor thinks the same way: he would rather have my money, than keep the suit he made. The tailorās time, effort and expertise are not what gives the suit its value, they are just costs the tailor pays to make a good suit the customer would value. If he manages to make a suite I would value equally, in less time and with less effort, good for him! The fact he worked less doesnāt necessarily mean I value his work less. It just means he worked faster.
1 Like
Totally agree with our special 
Its like louis vuitton for example. If we take the most classic t-shirt you can think of:
If you want the best quality, handmade, they will probably cost 100$ to the client not the producer.
Yet this t-shirt isnāt even handmade, is made like any t-shirt (Okay, the stitching is probably better) and is produced in Italy for reducing the cost of production.
If they sell them at this price, its because theyāre client see value in showing to other that they have lots of $$$. Most of them also think that high price = quality.
I pay 30$ max for this t-shit 
1 Like
If what adds value to some thing is its desirability, what adds desirability to that thing?
I may not find a piece of non-tailored cloth desirable. Therefore, to me, it has no value and I am not willing to pay for it.
I may find a piece of tailored cloth desirable. Therefore, to me, it has a value and I am willing to pay for it.
What adds desirability and consequently value to that piece of non-tailored cloth?
Itās subjective. People desire stuff based on their preferences (taste) and virtues. Like @GolDNenex pointed out, some people like a Louis Vuitton plain white shirt so much they are willing to pay $565 for it. Itās not my place to say this shirt isnāt worth that much, because clearly it is to some people. Itās not my place to say that their preferences are wrong, since it is entirely subjective. I mean, some people even use ɢɓį“į“į“, talk about odd tastesā¦ Didnāt you post before that tastes should not be discussed? Oh yes, you did, in Latin no less!
The question is simple but let me flesh it out.
A piece of non-tailored cloth, wonāt arouse any sense of desire towards it in the subject X. Therefore to X it doesnāt have any value.
The same piece of cloth is used to tailor a suit. The suit arouse a sense of desire towards it in the subject X. In the eyes of X, it has a value.
What transformation has the original piece of cloth undergone that makes it desirable to the subject X?
How this transformation has come about? By whom and by means of what?
1 Like
I see no value in the thread. 
2 Likes
Yet your actions show otherwise. 
I chased you for three days to tell you how much I donāt care for you.
Are you questioning my actions or my views?
Yes.
You talking to me? 
When a passionate dispute arises, often only two resolution options are availableāfight the opponent or avoid the discussion.
Edit: Iām not passionate about the subject. 
Okay, then Iām still waiting for the argument why Iām wrong when I say that āintellectual propertyā is not property and that copying is not stealing. Weāve been going back and fourth for days, and Iāve havenāt read a single challenge to my arguments, except āitās against the law!ā
1 Like
Youāre wrong because the law says so in most countries! 
Does that mean that whatever the law says, thatās right and ethical? Can a law be wrong or immoral?
I think weāve already established that vividly:
Heās totally fine with any law, coz it exists, itās just a matter of how you look at it, you seeā¦
P.S. To be honest i was a bit amazed, since it was tongueānācheekā¦but i guess whatever, free will exists.
No it sayās thatās what the law is because it was written for a reason. To protect Intellectual Property rights! I fail to see why you canāt comprehend that knowing that you are an intelligent person? Donāt know what else i can say. Iām not trying to convince you or change your mind. These are just the facts. Itās the law.
I know you and I agree that laws can be evil, and that breaking a law that is evil is a good thing, but Rick seems to think otherwise, so Iād like to change his mind on this.
You canāt! Thereās right and thereās wrong and then thereās evil! Iām on the right side.
