Pants can be what keeps you from freezing to death and going to jail.
Can be, but pants do not have inherent value in the context of a tropical climate where freezing is not an issue and nudity is allowed. They have contextual value.
Food does not have inherent value, it scales with availability and demand. An excess of apples that will spoil before they can be processed into something that can be consumed do not have inherent value.
This is important because while money’s value is far more volatile, the argument that material goods have inherent value as a comparison is flawed.
Dehydration, sunburns, bug bites, there are plenty of reasons you want clothing.
Clothing has inherent value whatever climate you’re in.
Food does have inherent value.
Food is necessary to keep the human body, and the body of many other species, alive.
The excess of food for a given population may have less value, but you can trade that excess, or harvest or store it; the food itself still has inherent value to humans and other organisms that eat food.
You’re looking for particular circumstances that mitigate or otherwise affect the inherent value of certain goods, though your scenarios depend on those goods having inherent value in the first place.
The fact that certain material goods have inherent value is not flawed, but you can keep trying.
Pants can have value, they do not have inherent value.
You’re looking for particular circumstances that mitigate or otherwise affect the inherent value of certain goods, though your scenarios depend on those goods having inherent value in the first place.
I am pointing out that there are exceptions to the assumption that there is inherent value to show that material goods do not have inherent value. That is the opposite of ‘depending on them having inherent value’.
You’re looking for particular circumstances that mitigate or otherwise detrimentally affect the inherent value of certain goods, though your scenarios depend on those goods having inherent value in the first place.
Clothing has inherent value for people.
Containers have inherent value.
Shoes, any number of material goods have inherent value.
In the context that we’re using the phrase and have even explicitly stated, “…to people”, these material goods…and food(that’s use your craziest argument so far) have inherent value.
No, that’s my point? Currencies do not have an inherent value to people, only societal, while material goods have inherent value to people while you’re pretending they don’t while you struggle against a definition.
Can be, but pants do not have inherent value in the context of a tropical climate where freezing is not an issue and nudity is allowed. They have contextual value.
Food does not have inherent value, it scales with availability and demand. An excess of apples that will spoil before they can be processed into something that can be consumed do not have inherent value.
This is important because while money’s value is far more volatile, the argument that material goods have inherent value as a comparison is flawed.
Pants have value in any climate.
Exposure is a problem in any climate.
Dehydration, sunburns, bug bites, there are plenty of reasons you want clothing.
Clothing has inherent value whatever climate you’re in.
Food does have inherent value.
Food is necessary to keep the human body, and the body of many other species, alive.
The excess of food for a given population may have less value, but you can trade that excess, or harvest or store it; the food itself still has inherent value to humans and other organisms that eat food.
You’re looking for particular circumstances that mitigate or otherwise affect the inherent value of certain goods, though your scenarios depend on those goods having inherent value in the first place.
The fact that certain material goods have inherent value is not flawed, but you can keep trying.
Pants can have value, they do not have inherent value.
I am pointing out that there are exceptions to the assumption that there is inherent value to show that material goods do not have inherent value. That is the opposite of ‘depending on them having inherent value’.
You’re looking for particular circumstances that mitigate or otherwise detrimentally affect the inherent value of certain goods, though your scenarios depend on those goods having inherent value in the first place.
Clothing has inherent value for people.
Containers have inherent value.
Shoes, any number of material goods have inherent value.
Currencies do not.
I don’t think you understand what inherent means.
If something does not always have value in every circumstance, the value is not inherent.
In the context that we’re using the phrase and have even explicitly stated, “…to people”, these material goods…and food(that’s use your craziest argument so far) have inherent value.
Do you think I’m talking about inherent value to dogs and cats?
I’m going to assume you are trolling and kick myself for falling for it.
No, that’s my point? Currencies do not have an inherent value to people, only societal, while material goods have inherent value to people while you’re pretending they don’t while you struggle against a definition.
Struggle!