 In general, it seems that we can take any pre-existing view about token causes and effects and translate it into a view about variable values. For instance, take a Kimian view of events, on which, for any property F, any individual a, and any time or time interval t, ⟨F, a, t⟩ is an event. Then, we could have a view on which each value of a given variable corresponds to one of these Kimian triples. What’s distinctive about variable values as causal relata, then, isn’t the individual values, but rather, how they are packaged together into a single variable. For instance, taking the Kimian view as our point of departure, we could have a variable, call it who steals the bike, whose potential values include ⟨steals the bike, Susan, t⟩ and ⟨steals the bike, Alex, t⟩. Or we could have a variable, call it what Susan steals, whose potential values include ⟨steals the bike, Susan, t⟩ and ⟨steals the canoe, Susan, t⟩. And there’s a third variable, call it what Susan does to the bike, whose potential values include ⟨steals the bike, Susan, t⟩ and ⟨buys the bike, Susan, t⟩. Now, there’s an additional metaphysical question faced by those who think that the token causal relata are variable values—a question not faced by Kim—which is: are the variable values who steals the bike = ⟨steals the bike, Susan, t⟩, what Susan steals = ⟨steals the bike, Susan, t⟩, and what Susan does to the bike = ⟨steals the bike, Susan, t⟩ all the same causal relatum, or are they different? (For more on these kinds of questions, see  §3.1  below.)