[RandComment]

> Inheritance is worthless, then.

That's a spurious deduction. Inheritance is a mechanism of passing value store. Purely living off inheritance, reduces the stored value. This is a demonstration of the concept, not a violation.

[abiox]

1) "The value of a currency is the effort required to obtain it"

2) (Inheritance requires no or marginal effort in acquisition)

c) "Inheritance is worthless, then."

[btilly]

Modify #1 to "The value of the currency is the average effort required to obtain X in wealth."

That allows us to include inheritance of wealth and finding bags of gold in the street without dismantling our understanding that a given amount of money represents a given amount of effort that we can expect others to be willing to exert to acquire that money from us.

And then walk through a house and look at it not as $X00,000 dollars, but rather as the amount of human work it represents.

[RandComment]

Currency value isn't dependent on a single entity's experience or the starving man would set food prices. SMH

[abiox]

presumably your issue was with the first premise and not the conclusion.

[RandComment]

That is not presumed. Reappropriating how value and effort are measured is just raising strawmen, as I intimated.

[abiox]

then your post was purely non-sequitur, as the syllogism's conclusion holds. there was no strawman.

[RandComment]

> purely non-sequitur

That's projection. No definition was offered and the existing was discounted. Still a strawman. Good luck with whatever.