@GeorgeNtoulos Values can be binary (either sublime or evil) or they can be graded (sublime, good, okay, neutral, bad, evil) etc. It's contextual. A bone of St. Peter would be sublime, and a bone of man possessed by the devil would be evil. Value is in the eye of the beholder. But a more economic related example:

Two people devise and implement a cryptocurrency Kryptos and begin using it with each other. Both people accept the Kryptos has value, so it has value despite the fact that it is an abstraction and not a physical object. Now a third person sees that both wealthy people are using Kryptos and offers to buy it. The three people now say one Kryptos is worth 1 lb of gold...

Now, because these three people all agree and have begun using the Kryptos as a currency, everyone they know wants to begin using it. Now, does the Kryptos have value? Yes. That is an objective fact because many people recognize and agree it has value, but this objective fact is built on subjective claims about an abstract asset. Thus, the Krypto has value not because it's useful per se, or even real, but because mutliple people subjectively believe it to be valuable...

This is why it is intersubjective. In fact, if you examine the nature of the "objectivity" of the value, you'll not be able to claim anything truly "objective" about it, other than, perhaps, the computer code it runs on. So, the objectivity of the value of the Krypto is contingent upon phenomenological perspective.

In fact, claims about objectivity itself are thus open to normative criticisms. Some people deny the earth is round. Is their logic likely to be fallacious, yes, but what really privileges objectivity over subjectivity? Intersubjectivity. To flat earthers, it is an objective fact that the world is flat, despite the fact to non-flater earthers, it is an objective fact it is not. Objectivity is a social compact to a certain extent.

Medicine is another place where facts are often shown to be riddled with value. The APA used to consider homosexuality a disease, then one year it didn't. Medical "facts" like what is and what is not a disease is subject to human value. The evidence tipped in favor of homosexuality being natural and widespread, and having a physical basis. Thus "disease" changed to accomodate intersubjective views.

In societies like North Korea, the government determines what is fact and non-fact, and executes people who disagree. Here's a clear cut example of where claims about facts are actually clearly values in disguise. In NK, it is a fact that the ruling family is god-like and is capable of extraordinary "facts".

@JD I am more interested in the magnitude of value. I thought like one measured energy in Joules there could be some abstract unit to measure value. Instead of just being sublime, good, okay, neutral, bad , evil. It could be simply measured by a Real scalar times said abstract unit. Cardinal as opposed to Ordinal. Maybe value could be monetized by the indifference price.

@GeorgeNtoulos Sure. If one chooses to quantify value of an object, it becomes a price which is intersubjective. A seller has a value, let's say $100 and a buyer has a value, let's say $80. Then the seller and buyer see the difference and try to find a way to move from two different subjective values to one intersubjective value. If many people agree with the intersubjective value, it becomes relatively objective.

@JD When I am compensating a person whose propriety is to be expropriated I am not thinking of the Social Benefit of paying less compensation. When the law says full compensation for the warranted value and I am only interested in the person whose propriety is to be expropriated isn't the wording equivalent to pay their indiferrence price(at least)? Is the value of the propriety not absolutely subjective( a matter of the owners decision)?

In the US, a judge can order non-binding dispute resolution, binding dispute resolution, or may oversee the decision personally. In the last case, the value of the house is determined by financial and legal argumentation based on evidence in accordance with the procedural and substantive law. Then it can be appealed, in the US, up to the Supreme Court of the US whose decision would be final.

Most of the time, market norms, statutes and regulations, stare decisis, and caselaw settle that far before it goes to that extreme. So, the value is determined through an intersubjective process ironically of which neither party may agree with. This is the rule of law.

If what you are interested in is what constitutional “just compensation” is (which I doubt), it is the fair market value of the land taken. The concept essentially means the price the real estate would bring after fair and reasonable negotiations between a seller willing but not forced to sell and a buyer willing but not forced to buy. And this amount is established with expert witness testimony.