In economics there's something called the Wilt Chamberlain Problem, where Chamberlain explained that he liked basketball so much that he'd play for free. Yet he was paid millions. So every dollar that he was paid produced no incentive for further supply, which caused economists to consider this situation more like rent than wages. With the rent of land, no greater supply of land is manifest when the landowner is paid.

I understand but that's an utilitarian view of life. And also how do you value things like that .. again, we're back to the relativistic nature of money.