Fang
12-24-2007, 02:28 PM
A lot of arguments about guns hinge on need, justification, or freedom of choice, so I thought I'd share this little essay I wrote up a while back on justifying things with needs versus wants:
There's a reason people who want to control others focus so much on needs. A need is demonstrable: It can be examined against external criteria created by someone who is not the person asserting need. A need can be denied, and the person denying this need can argue convincingly in support of the denial. A needs-based society must necessarily be one wherein all members are continually asking for permission from those who adjudicate other people's needs. Given that life is basically a complex and balanced set of needs, the authority to judge what people need constitutes power over their lives.
Wants, on the other hand, are pure assertion. Nobody can realistically argue that another person doesn't want something. Denying what someone wants is indefensible; it is patently clear that the person performing the denial is enforcing his will on another.
Arguments about need are always offered in defense of denial of wants, because the denial of a want can never be justified on its own without claiming some fundamental right to control another's life. A society built on making available to people that which they want must be based on the assumption that people are the sole arbiters of their own lives and the only ones capable of competantly determining their own needs; therefore, giving people what they want is the best way to ensure that everyone gets exactly what he needs.
Arguments against wants invariably hinge on assumptions of irrationality or incompetance: If all are given free reign to satisfy their wants, the argument goes, abuse of this power will be widespread and grievous enough to negate any benefits the freedom provides. By itself, this assertion is a simple empirical statement and therefore subject to confirmation or disproof via experimental means; in practice, though, the argument is rendered disingenuous by the fact that the person making the argument self-identifies with one of two categories: those who are apt to abuse their freedom to realize wants, or those who will not. In the first case, the person seeking needs-based justification either projects his own irrationality or incompetance onto others in defense of his self-image, or seeks extrinsic curtailment of his destructive impulses at the expense of others' freedom. In the second case, the person arguing for justification on the basis of need believes he would function well if given free reign to pursue his wants, but others would not; he believes himself to be superior to others (in at least some respects) and therefore better suited to judge the positive or negative impacts of some or all of their behavior.
Though mutually exclusive in their foci (others versus self), these corollaries both hinge on the common element of control.
There's a reason people who want to control others focus so much on needs. A need is demonstrable: It can be examined against external criteria created by someone who is not the person asserting need. A need can be denied, and the person denying this need can argue convincingly in support of the denial. A needs-based society must necessarily be one wherein all members are continually asking for permission from those who adjudicate other people's needs. Given that life is basically a complex and balanced set of needs, the authority to judge what people need constitutes power over their lives.
Wants, on the other hand, are pure assertion. Nobody can realistically argue that another person doesn't want something. Denying what someone wants is indefensible; it is patently clear that the person performing the denial is enforcing his will on another.
Arguments about need are always offered in defense of denial of wants, because the denial of a want can never be justified on its own without claiming some fundamental right to control another's life. A society built on making available to people that which they want must be based on the assumption that people are the sole arbiters of their own lives and the only ones capable of competantly determining their own needs; therefore, giving people what they want is the best way to ensure that everyone gets exactly what he needs.
Arguments against wants invariably hinge on assumptions of irrationality or incompetance: If all are given free reign to satisfy their wants, the argument goes, abuse of this power will be widespread and grievous enough to negate any benefits the freedom provides. By itself, this assertion is a simple empirical statement and therefore subject to confirmation or disproof via experimental means; in practice, though, the argument is rendered disingenuous by the fact that the person making the argument self-identifies with one of two categories: those who are apt to abuse their freedom to realize wants, or those who will not. In the first case, the person seeking needs-based justification either projects his own irrationality or incompetance onto others in defense of his self-image, or seeks extrinsic curtailment of his destructive impulses at the expense of others' freedom. In the second case, the person arguing for justification on the basis of need believes he would function well if given free reign to pursue his wants, but others would not; he believes himself to be superior to others (in at least some respects) and therefore better suited to judge the positive or negative impacts of some or all of their behavior.
Though mutually exclusive in their foci (others versus self), these corollaries both hinge on the common element of control.