XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.society.liberalism, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.fun, alt.politics.democrats.d
Ubiquitous wrote:
Most people draw a false distinction between "necessities" vs
"luxuries." Food, water, clothing, shelter, etc. are called
"necessities" or "needs," and everything else is a "luxury" or a
"mere want." Sometimes the word "mere" is only implied, but often
enough it is expressly stated.
There is no such distinction. People *only* have wants, and
things are needed in order to satisfy those wants, but the need
is only *instrumental*, not intrinsic. If you "want" to play
tennis, then you "need" a racquet and balls. If you "want" to go
to the cinema to see "Superman," then you "need" the wherewithal
to buy a ticket. If you "want" to walk over rough terrain without
injuring your feet, then you "need" shoes or boots. And if you
"want" to continue living, then you "need" food and water. But
all of these "needs" are purely instrumental.
The way we know this is through our old friend, economics price
theory. If something is truly a need, then you would not trade
even the minutest part of some of it that you possess in order to
acquire an enormous quantity of a "mere luxury" good. But we see
people make those trades every day. People will do without some
supposed "needs" in order to obtain some amount of "mere wants."
For example, people will consume less (or lower quality) food in
order to buy a new tennis racquet or a larger TV. It happens all
the time.
people who are in a position to think about buying a tennis raq
or tv do not have threat to their survival from pursuing those
choices.
cut off electricity and supplies to a city for a couple of days
and it will turn into a wasteland.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)