Values are subjective; this is an axiom of economic theory.
Even the same clerk will incur different costs depending on at what point in his life he gets punched in the face. Therefore, in the case of a drunken brawl in a pub, half an hour later he will be merrily drinking with the person he was just fighting with, but if because of the fight he misses the trip of his dreams with his beloved girlfriend, it will be fraught with consequences for him more serious than the failure of some shitty diplomatic visit.
More or less quantifiable damage from violence is covered by an insurance policy, and the insurance company then recovers it from the person who applied the violence, if it so desires. Here, the president and the clerk are equal: the more expensive the policy they bought and the higher the premium provided for under it, the greater their chance of receiving it. As for moral damages, recovering them is even more difficult for the president. The clerk can be litigious, trying to prove to an arbitrator how seriously he was offended, but the president, as a public figure, will have to weigh his words so that his behavior in court does not cause more damage to his reputation than the violence under consideration. I don’t know about anyone else, but if I were the president, I would limit myself to demanding a public apology and profit from beautiful photos of conciliatory hugs.
I will gladly accept bitcoins from you as donations, and I won’t even consider their absence as moral damage. Wallet 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8