I find it interesting the relativistic nature of (2) in Menger’s breakdown of mistaken goods. Especially when religion is considered a “relationship good”. Has this been a point of contention at any point in time where legal definitions of goods were contested on the basis of a “interpreted human need”?
That's a great question. I'm honestly not sure if there's ever been any serious contention on the grounds of "interpreted human need." As it stands now the legal definition of 'goods' is pretty clear on it extending only to both tangible items and property and non-tangible property (a will, deed to a house, etc.)
I find it interesting the relativistic nature of (2) in Menger’s breakdown of mistaken goods. Especially when religion is considered a “relationship good”. Has this been a point of contention at any point in time where legal definitions of goods were contested on the basis of a “interpreted human need”?
That's a great question. I'm honestly not sure if there's ever been any serious contention on the grounds of "interpreted human need." As it stands now the legal definition of 'goods' is pretty clear on it extending only to both tangible items and property and non-tangible property (a will, deed to a house, etc.)