The Next Time a Politician Talks About 'Need'
"In public-policy debates the word most commonly invoked as the ace in the hole is need. However, need needs careful handling.
"Need has the political advantage, but the logical disadvantage, of lacking a clear meaning. That allows it to be systematically abused to distort understanding and to reach desired conclusions that justify picking people's pockets to pay for what someone else wants. (emphasis added)
"The concept has no universal meaning beyond I want, but I do not want to pay for it. I learned this from my children, who wielded the word almost exclusively to extract benefits for themselves at parental expense. However, once we move beyond childhood's focus on getting what is wanted by verbally manipulating parents, there is less reason to invoke need. In a world of voluntary market arrangements, one seldom uses the word (except when explaining why one did or plan to do something). If you really needed something, rather than saying it you would simply buy it or earn the resources to do so. Need would result in not mere complaining but rather in actions that benefit others as well. (emphasis added)
"When public policy is discussed, though, need is resurrected as a weasel word by whoever wishes to avoid paying for what he wants — a return to the paternalism of childhood — and it should therefore raise a warning whenever it is used.
"In that context need assumes away the consequences of unavoidable scarcity. Scarcity exists for each us, individually as well as for society, making tradeoffs imperative. And some of those tradeoffs involve choices among various needs. Therefore, calling something a need diverts attention from the actual choices faced."
~ Gary Galles