There's no "could be" here. Not wanting to go to jail is a subjective preference.
That most people prefer the same thing, does not make value objective.
If it did, Bitcoin would also have "objective value" from its scarcity, difficulty of confiscation, ease of move between borders, and many other properties which are preferred by most.
For me, Bitcoin has value because it can't be inflated, and I can carry it on my head over any country's frontier without governments harassing me because of it.
Sure, Bitcoin is a means to an end, I can only "use" it by exchanging it for something else, but so is any other currency.
It is understandable that having an model of an observer can be useful to a brain.
But how/why does that opens a window to an actual observer, and not just a model, is the question.
And we only know that - an actual observer exists - through first hand experience. It is our most immediate and certain knowledge (Cogito, ergo sum), everything else can be questioned. Yet, there's nothing in physics or computer science that gives a hint to this being the case.
By inner experience, we mean that there's a subject which gets to have perception of such models.
There's no need for such subject to exist.
For example, most people assume that, so far, computers do not have any inner experience.
A computer could, conceivably, execute the same functions as our brain, yet have no inner experience of anything. Numbers get in, numbers get out, without any inner experience being needed.
There's nothing intrinsically superior to either SCOTUS or any group or organization's interpretation.
I'm pretty sure you are able to interpret it as not allowing even in the worst and most extreme cases, you just don't want to. There's no need for an argument from authority.
I don't think the Brazilian government has this responsibility as it is the most at fault for Brazil's lacking free market.
Maybe when it becomes a champion on that, removing barriers of entry, protectionism, subsidies and it's public companies monopolies, then it can be a fair judge on this issue.
You can predict trends, not laws, using large groups observation. Austrians would not deny that. Trends are not a useful tool for economic policy, are only good tools for entrepreneurship.
I may be way of my field here, but my understanding is that the whole point of the Austrian school is that human behavior is (purposeful, but) unpredictable.
This is a testable claim, and you can bother to observe, experiment and test this claim. Austrians should accept they are wrong if you can empirically prove that humans behavior is predictable.
But if this claim is correct, there's no reason for you to do empirical economic observations to prove or disprove economic laws. Any empirical conclusion will have no predictive power as a law, only as a trend.
Not only that, but any logical consequence of human behavior being purposeful and unpredictable is as correct as the original claim.
So we have no benefit of "open access to the mechanism" but with the deleterious effect of the "temporary (1/5 of a long human life) monopoly".