Talk:Objectivist theory of value

Original resarch

I know this article reeks of original research. Here is what I did: there is no entry for the objective theory of value, as presented by Von Mises and Rand. So I started one. I consider this article to be a framework for further enhancement. It presents a concise sumary of the theory. I think what should be done is expand the article by including references to the work of others, without loosing the outline of the article, as I think it would otherwise loose its clarity. Instead of expanding here, sections could have links to subsections elsewhere. Philosophical subjects can be quite dense to the untrained reader, and no value will be added by turning the article into a lengthy academic paper. -- Dullfig 20:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article might be misnamed. I always thought that "objective theory of value" was just another name for an intrinsic theory of value. Further, it is my understanding that Von Mises was a marginalist, and, as such, supported the subjective theory of value. Perhaps the contents of this page should be merged into the Objectivist philosophy article, and the page itself should be made a redirect to intrinsic theory of value. -- Nikodemos 23:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, a Google search on 'objective theory of value' gives far more pages referring to classical and Marxist views than pages referring to Ayn Rand. How about we call Ayn Rand's theory the Objectivist theory of value, to avoid confusion? -- Nikodemos 23:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is part of the problem. There is no agreement on what to call it; but I think that one cannot call the intrinsic theory both intrinsic and objective without leading to confusion. Besides, intrinsic is a much more accurate name, as the intrinsic theory holds that the value resides entirely in the item, without regard to the consumer. But this cannot be true, because the same item might be of different value to different people. No matter how much or how little you value an item, this value is always based on intrinsic properties of the item. People don't just "make up" the value of an item. So it is not entirely subjective either. There is a reason you pick a rock over a nerf ball (sponge ball) to defend yourself! So I believe this theory of value has strong merit to it, and I would disagree with just tucking it away out of sight in the Objectivist page. It is not just some obscure theory. -- Dullfig 00:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the theory has strong merit, but right now this page makes it look like the theory is the exclusive domain of Objectivist philosophy. If that is true, it should be merged with objectivist philosophy like I said. If, on the other hand, we agree that the theory can stand on its own, we should tone down the attributions to Rand. What do you think? -- Nikodemos 00:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, she never called objectivist theory of value, but objective theory of value, so we would be changing the name anyways. Dullfig 00:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but Rand did not invent the term "objective theory of value". It was (and still is) used for the most part to refer to intrinsic theories of value. Clearly, intrinsic theories are objective too... So what should we call this? I don't know, but I'm open to suggestions. -- Nikodemos 00:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about Objective theory of value (Ayn Rand)? And make this page a disambig between Ayn Rand's theory and Intrinsic theories of value. -- Nikodemos 00:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]