Something I read just recently just didn't sit well with me. The article stated that some things are valueless apart from the market.
While this is true in an economic system, it is not always the case for the individual and a choice of value. For instance, a family "heirloom", might not be a heirloom in the market, but it is to the family or a specific family member. So, market value is not always absolute. Nor is the market always the priority for choices of value.
Sometimes there are more important priorities than attaining success or the highest salary. I am NOT saying that seeking a higher salary or attaining the highest salary that one can is immoral or wrong. But, what one chooses to value cannot be determined by a system, necessarily.
The problem become when such attainments are sought at "any costs". Then, such comples systems can cause unintentional outcomes that are horrendously immoral. And this is when one's choice of value imposes itself upon another's life.
The prevention of such unintentional outcomes would be prevented if the "rule of law" was upheld and those within such schemes would not cooperate when they found immoral practices, decisions or commitments. But, the choice to stand against such systems brings costs that many don't want to pay. And then, those that have the unfortunate circumstances to be associated with such people have to pay the price!