tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19268887.post811909539823540674..comments2024-03-17T18:44:03.058+11:00Comments on Lazy Luddite Log: Needs And Wants Are Different Right?Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12710148812664294219noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19268887.post-30573438930259098892017-05-09T19:19:55.842+10:002017-05-09T19:19:55.842+10:00I'm copying and pasting comments to this same ...I'm copying and pasting comments to this same post from LiveJournal (complete with messy formatting text). See below...<br /> <br />From: pezzae<br />Date: May 20th, 2010 09:57 am (local)<br /> Select: Delete Spam Screen Freeze Track This<br /> (Link)<br />Food is a need, correct? Hence provision of food is a right, correct?<br />There seems to be some wiggle room in the definitions, as in a capitalist/mixed economy such as ours you have the right to a minimum wage which would allow you to meet your needs for food, water, shelter etc so long as you don't, say, also have an expensive medical condition or drug addiction. (Should the pension be enough to buy cigarettes?)<br />(Reply) (Thread)<br /> <br />From: originaluddite<br />Date: May 20th, 2010 01:15 pm (local)<br /> Select: Edit Delete Screen Freeze Track This<br /> (Link)<br />If it is an expensive medical condition then I would think that it deserves to be covered by a public health scheme. Some do have greater needs than others.<br /><br />The issue of discretional spending does complicate things. There is nothing stopping someone from allocating their income between needs and wants in any way they want. In marginal cases this produces scenarios like you describe of buying cigarettes (and then maybe skimping on food). Mind you I think such prioritizing is rare. Having friends in this position I can say that they rarely neglect themselves on the nutrition front but will neglect to pay the phone bill. And it may just be my family background that tells me that paying all your bills is a necessity.<br /><br />Some propose the alternative of dictating what welfare recipients can buy with such methods as food vouchers. I personally find this shows a lack of respect for those on welfare and - besides - responsibility is something you have to practice.<br /><br />There is the other method of making the cigarettes more expensive via sin taxes. There is the problem that this and other things like gambling are _addictive_ and so the tax becomes a revenue collection method rather than a true disincentive. And it targets the disadvantaged. Finally there is my philosophical problem - it is legal for an adult to indulge in these things and yet we try to make it difficult to do so. Here is a mixed message - is it right or wrong? I would prefer it if the policy was re-named as an 'automatic fine' (thus saying these things were a crime like speeding).<br />(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12710148812664294219noreply@blogger.com