Intrinsic value is nonexistent. All value is subjective.
Would you be open-minded enough to hear an opposing viewpoint? 4 Arguments for intrinsic value (I don't even buy all 4, just ideas):
I pride myself on my openmindedness and ability to judge opposing viewpoints on their merits instead of discarding them out of hand.
If we had perfect morality, information and ability inside of a normalized market system (the hypothesis goes) we would be able to attain the ideal intrinsic value of a good. As evidence I submit that any economy with superior information, ability or morality results in superior economic performance.
Even with perfect (and uniform) morality, the desires would still be subjective.
2)
Value may be personally subjective but a market value is an objective phenomena in a free market because no person directly determines it. Over time market values approach a long-term equilibrium. That long-term equilibrium is determined entirely by objective economic law. In this sense it is objective.
It is objective, in that sense, yes. (More accurately, intersubjectively valid) But you can't say that's an intrinsic value, it's just an average of people's subjective valuations.
3) Intrinsic value literally means what the thing itself is worth. While we say that a person's preference for something is subjective, we may also say that a person's opinion of the value of a thing is that person's appraisal of the good's intrinsic value.
Which is a tautology.
4) Finally, are preferences ever really subjective or are they simply predetermined by complicated interactions of nature? In other words, does free will really exist? Personally I think it does but it is worth bringing up because many people who believe in "free markets" have no reason to think that free will really exists. If free will does not exist then all prices are non-subjective ie objective because even what we perceive as our own preference is really determined objectively.
If free will doesn't exist, then there is little point in arguing anything, is there?
Thanks! You say you are open minded and your post confirms it. To delve a little deeper:
1) Yes desires would be subjective but they would be attempting to mimic objective desires and therefore those objective desires in essence determine the subjective desires in the long run. Such is the intrinsic value argument. It is not that A is objectively worth B and therefore the market value
equals B rather it is that A is objectively worth B and therefore the market value will
approach B as people subjectively realize that it is worth B and the market works toward it. The intrinsic value is never realized because it is intrinsic, rather it is realized because people subjectively choose the correct intrinsic value, which they should. Rather than maximizing personal wants the intrinsic value maximizes the wants of the objective reference frame. Of course this is necessitated by an objective reference frame which is also capable of wants. It may seem contradictory that an objective reference frame can have wants but that is not a contradiction if the wants are necessarily ideal desires ie God.
2) I like the term intersubjectively valid and it comes close to what I am suggesting. However everyone can agree on a bad allocation of resources. What I am suggesting is that there is a maximally great possible allocation of resources. If that were achieved then every good would necessarily be at its intrinsic value. Pt 1 emphasized that this maximally great allocation would simply be the will of God Pt 2 emphasizes that this maximally great allocation can be determined in the long run by a combination of "superpeople" (perfect market information, moralilty and ability) and free market economic law.
3) It is a tautology but a revealing one. It implies that objective value can equal subjective value in certain cases. Therefore in certain cases the subjective market value can equal the intrinsic value. Namely, in the case of an optimal allocation of resources.
4) Of course you are right but the point I was hoping you would make is that people neither have perfect nor imperfect free will. Rather, we have limited free will. Similarly all decisions we make are only partly subjective. Furthermore, if free market theory is true, economic law outweighs preferences in the long run and fully determines prices. This full determination should result in a maximally great allocation of resources in the long run. As previously discussed when this allocation occurs each good should be priced at its "real" "true" and "intrinsic" value.
I hope you are enjoying this conversation! Actually I have been working on a post-free market economic theory of Christian Anarchism and this discussion is helping me improve that theory. The basic idea is that a free market satisfies all people's wants but a post-free market satisfies the wants of an objective reference frame. In other words what an economy would look like if everyone did what they should be doing rather than what they want to do, which, as pointed out, could be the same thing in certain cases.