A value does not exist apart from implicit counter-values and so if you will the value you also will the counter-values. For example the value in ownership of property entails the counter-value of thievery, so if you take ownership property as a fundamental value you are also assigning a value to theft, and to a host of further vicissitudes. This ought not to be paradoxical or deconstructive in any way. Why should any value be treated as if it was entirely without context? You cannot will x without also willing the context of x, since x does not exist without its context. The difficulty is that x may appear to be more or less explicit while its context is almost certainly mostly unknown, but that's no reason to dismiss the value of x. Everything is complex and so complexity is inescapable. Simplicity is the first approximation to complexity, and so is a temporary heuristic for dealing with it. Complexity, however, is not an extrapolation of simplicity, it is an adventure which calls into being the resources needed to engage it. It is summarised in narrative, before ideally acquiring a never-unproblematic theoretical account. All this if there is a dealing with, a dealer and a dealt.