“No, sorry, but it’s not. It’s based off seeing “x works his ass off daily, y really doesn’t work all that hard. Y derives by far the largest benefit from this.” This is as true from an STV viewpoint as it is an LTV.”
Isn’t the LTV just a way of attempting to philosophically justify the idea that “Y derives by far the largest benefit from this”? By looking at things on a very short timescale, and not accounting for the work previously done by Y in obtaining the capital to create X’s job and in taking the risk of the venture’s failure, and also not accounting for the fact that if not for Y, X’s job wouldn’t exist?
Isn’t the LTV just a way of attempting to philosophically justify the idea that “Y derives by far the largest benefit from this”? By looking at things on a very short timescale, and not accounting for the work previously done by Y in obtaining the capital to create X’s job and in taking the risk of the venture’s failure, and also not accounting for the fact that if not for Y, X’s job wouldn’t exist?
No, the LTV long predates Marx; advocated by both Smith and Ricardo.
“No, the LTV long predates Marx; advocated by both Smith and Ricardo.”
Ah, okay. Still, it doesn’t change the fact that under the labour theory of value, an exact measurement of value is impossible, as far as I’m aware (much as Marxists could never agree on a mathematically exact amount of ‘exploitation’ occurring at a given wage). Whereas the subjective theory of value can determine value exactly: value is the price buyers are willing to pay for something. As value in the LTV is not accurately measurable, that is why I refer to it as an ‘objective’ theory of value, as it assumes that some individual’s personal concept of value is universally applicable, that ‘value’ is an objective thing, like ‘justice’ or ‘perfection’ - things which in reality only exist in the minds of individual humans, and are not measurable (much as how socialism is an objective theory of value, in the sense that it assumes socialists’ sense of ‘fairness’ is universally -objectively- applicable). As opposed to STV, which assumes the only value of somebody’s labour is the value others place on it, expressed in the price they are willing to pay. STV doesn’t abstract out any universal notion of ‘value’ and say it is the ‘right’ value, and hence is not an objective theory of value in that sense.
Communal dwellings and alternative family structures certainly had their place in other times and cultures. Although perhaps there is some population “critical mass” after which these social arrangements tend to break down and factionalize. I’m no socioligist, so I’m not sure.
As far as I’m aware, monogamy was a response to sexually transmitted infections that, like most other human infectious diseases, became prevalent when people started urbanising, packed tightly together in cities alongside many other humans and animals. Monogamy was, and still is, one of the most effective ways to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted infections. The theory is urbanised societies that did not develop a culture of monogamy would have been crippled by STIs, giving monogamous societies an evolutionary advantage, and thus ultimately allowing them to dominate the urbanised world. Assuming this were the correct explanation for the cultural prevalence of monogamy and the nuclear family, then if the free market found a cure or effective prophylactic for all STIs, monogamy would no longer serve the cultural purpose for which it evolved, and if non-monogamous families had more children, then they’d ultimately come to dominate, and the culture would change (cultural evolution). If however monogamy is due to some inherent biological preference in humans, rather than a cultural thing, then it’s unlikely family structures would change significantly, regardless of whether or not the State regulated marriage. So that’d ultimately determine the answer: are human biological preferences closer to those of free-loving bonobos, or of mating-for-life gibbons? Likely, preferences would vary amongst individuals, and so the market would provide a variety of marriage/relationship options, much as it provides variety in other consumer goods.
There is a natural behavior mechanism at work that opposes things that are different. It’s the same mechanism that attracts people to groups or government. The additional feature that government brings is the ability to coerce others without risk.
As much as people may try to be objective, it’s against human nature, which is largely subjective. While you can go about life with an objective thinking mindset, you still make decisions and act based on subjective thought.