The Philosophy of™ – Value and Price

There is a difference between an entity being “popular” and “good”.Many a time the best is not the most popular in Superminis, SUVs, goods, services, professionals or in various areas of life, and unless the rules are known (as they are in law and sports), we forever take issue about what (or who) is better or more valuable.

However, once we all agree on the rules for what we are discussing, agreement on winners, losers, and rankings become surprisingly easy.

Most disagreements occur because the participants talk about different things, or different attributes of things, but don’t know it. It is as if several people were trying to decide the winner of a just completed football game who do not know the rules of football and have never before saw a game. Both such discussion and the ensuing decision would be pointless and a waste of time.

Hard to believe, but that is how most things are actually decided in western civilization today, and we are ahead of other civilizations!


Non-Subjective Valuing® solves this age old “value” challenge by making sure that when the worth of an entity is unearthed, considered, and before choices are made: all of us talk about the exact same thing, agree on the exact applicable rules of the game, and do not value

anything based on partial information or from an arbitrary point of view. The Optimally Informed Society is the observer! (To make the point in an inverted fashion, the inventor of Non-Subjective Valuing® [who is well known to believe to have a unique sense of humor] coined this not yet famous phrase: Temporary friendships between individuals or nations are usually due to misunderstandings… )

Because Non-Subjective Valuing® makes up no rules for evaluating, it is perfect to accurately discover the universally credible true monetary value or ranking (locally, internationally and worldwide) of intentions, accomplishments, affaires, affairs, beliefs, campaigns, causes, affiliations, answers, chances, commodities, crusades, cultures, discoveries, dogmas, goals, hypotheses, inventions, justice systems, liaisons, matters, military operations, modus operandi, objects, performances, philosophies, plans, policies, possibilities, procedures, professionals, programs, projects, purposes, questions, routines, solutions, tenets, theories, things, trading, operations, verdicts, wars, ways of life, goods and services and anything else man can imagine.

Who is to say?
The evaluating criterions are respectively those of the hypothetically perfectly knowledgeable community, and/or the suddenly ideally informed individual.

Conclusively, Non-Subjective Valuing® provides value judgments similar to decisions made by a fictitious ideal jury that is perfectly fair, knows all the relevant facts and the law, and has no doubt about how to apply the law to the facts.

Another comparison could be to a sports referee who knows every rule, is 100% unbiased and never makes a mistake.

Non-Subjective Valuing® can rank best-to-worst in any area. It can discover precise value to a society that hypothetically knows and understands everything it wanted to know and understand about the probed entity: unearthing exact communal monetary worth based on optimal information.

Since all Non-Subjective Valuing® assessments are based on a theoretically most desirably enlightened community’s judgments, Non-Subjective Valuing® can universally credibly answer questions such as Are we to declare war?; What should be the rights of teenagers?; Should we legalize the use of heroin?; Which governmental programs or gun control laws work?; Is the death penalty good for society?; Should radio stations be required to broadcast serious music at all or only the junk most people like?; or What is serious music?; and so on.

This system conclusively mirrors the view of our society if it were perfectly knowledgeable about these subjects in the community’s very terms. It is not a popularity contest, since traditional polls learn only what people in the dark think. Instead, Non-Subjective Valuing® facilitates ideal democratic procedure.