[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
One party's contention that his property is worth $200,000 when no similar property has sold for more than $50,000 doesnt mean that $200,000 is the "just" price.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Bob owns a house and wants to sell it for $200,000, then it doesn't matter whether you think his price is way too high given what other similar houses have sold for, or too low, or whatever. It's his house, and part of being that owner of said house means he can ask whatever the [censored] he wants when selling it.

[ QUOTE ]
Your conclusion points out exactly why theres a prolem with your defintion...you wind up in a situation where no compensation is "just", which is clearly untenable in a market based society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. All voluntary transactions are just; it's just the coercive transactions that end up being entirely unjust. This is exactly what one should expect from a market society.

None of this has anything to do with 'market value', which we could still talk about and calculate independently of of 'just' prices. The issue is that getting 'market value' for my house won't be just unless it's the price I'm asking for.