There are many words that serve to confuse more than elucidate. And most of them, unfortunately, are words that the average man on the street imagine to have a clear meaning. "Fair", for example, is one of those words which can mean almost anything ("Protean Terminology"),  and yet everyone who uses, or almost everyone, thinks not only that it has a single, clear meaning, but that everyone else agrees upon that meaning. (A handful recognize the confusing nature of the word, but most of them use that knowledge to exploit it, rather than to avoid adding to the confusion.)It is inevitable, whenever a debate comes to rely upon the term "fair", the debate will degenerate into confusion and anger, as each participant wonders how the others cannot see "the obvious", as each wonders how anyone could fail to see the plainly "fair" resolution.

And there are a number of such words. "Fair", "just" "equitable" and all the other synonyms and near synonyms are popular. "Good", "bad", "evil" and related terms of judgment are popular as well, though more people seem to recognize the differences in individual definitions with these terms. Other terms also fall into the same category, with many thinking they have a single, clear meaning, while others recognize the varying meanings ascribed to them. These include favorites such as "legal", "constitutional" and do on. And the list goes on. The range of terms varies, depending on how much confusion one is willing to accept. Some words are defined uniquely by every individual, yet everyone imagines they have but a single definition agreed upon by everyone, fitting our definition perfectly. Others have more widespread definitions, or the confusion is more well known, but however far you stretch the definition, there are quite a few words which are ill defined, yet believed to be clear and certain.

However, the worst of the lot, the word most poorly defined, and yet believed to have a single, certain definition, is one no one recognizes as such. It is a word which, as the definition states, is imagined to have almost technical precision, and yet is defined in such idiosyncratic ways that it is almost meaningless.

That word is "need".

This word has come to my attention twice. First, when discussing drug legailization ("Drug Legalization", "Required Waste"), and the argument arose several times that "no one needs to use drugs", I began to consider the meaning of the word, in order to examine the validity of that argument. Second, when looking at the free market ("Greed Versus Evil") and authoritarian alternatives ("The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism",  "Moral For Me, But Not For Thee", "Bad Economics Part 10"), especially when considering alternatives to the price system ("The Inevitability of Bureaucratic Management in Government Enterprises", "Bureaucracy Revisited"), the term popped up again, as many argued that the free market favored "wants" over "needs", and that allowing people freedom often resulted in them not obtaining what they needed.

Both cases sounds sensible until you being to ask what the arguments truly mean. For example, when we say "no one needs to take drugs", what does that mean? That drugs are not necessary for survival? Very little is. To argue drugs can be banned as unnecessary for survival would also allow you to argue against art, literature, religion, education, anything except a minimal amount of food, water and perhaps shelter absolutely essential for survival. ("It Doesn't Matter to ME...", "Who Does It Harm?") Somehow I doubt that is what those offering this argument mean.

More likely they mean one can live a fulfilling life without using drugs, that one can live a life of which they would approve without drugs. But that is not the meaning of "need" most people have in mind. Especially as we do not know how this given individual defines a worthwhile life, the statement is effectively meaningless. All they are saying, in effect, is "I see no reason to use drugs." But as they use the term "need", they are making their own value judgment sounds like an objective, universal rule, rather than a statement of personal preference.

And the same holds for those who deride the free market for supplying "wants not needs". When they say the market should provide what people need, or that prices need to reflect the "true value" based on "needs", again, they are not talking about the bare minimum of survival. As they are talking about books, films, research, education and so on, what they mean is that the market should reflect their values, prices should force others to behave as they would. In short, "need" has only become a shorthand used to smuggle in covert value judgments. They are saying the valuations of other people, which they call "wants", are less important than their own valuations, which they call "needs". It is, as above, a convenient way to make one's prejudice sound like scientific certainties. ("The Limits of "Scientific" Management", "Bad Economics Part 16")

The problem is simple, it is inherent in the very word itself, the word "need". You see, to use "need" properly, you really need an explicit or implicit clause following it, to explain for what purpose it is needed. For example, "You need an oven to bake a cake." Or, as an example of an implicit clause, if you were discussing driving to the store, "you need to put gas in your car [to drive to the store]." It is only with this modifier that "need" is meaningful, as "need" has meaning only in context.

In "Absolute Values" I discussed the way using absolute terms can make a mess of thought, well "need" is not exception. When we deprive "need" of a context, there is only one way to read it*, that is an absolute need, a need one will feel regardless of circumstance. But such needs do not exist. Even the bare minimum I used above, "need to survive" assumes one wishes to survive, and so is wrong in a few aberrant contexts. But, outside of that single case, "need" is only meaningful when we use it as a means to an end. Without the end, "need" is meaningless, and quite misleading.

Which is why I would prefer to see "need" disappear from argument, or at least disappear when not clearly qualified. As with the word "scarce" ( "Can We Ban the Word "Scarce"?"), it is a word politicians and pundits abuse, and one which the general public thinks they understand, but which leads to endless confusion. We would be much better off were the word to be avoided entirely and a new, more clear term take its place.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* I am ignoring the one other way in which "need" is used, the teenage hyperbole usage. The way a teen uses "I hate you" to mean "I am slightly upset" or "he's the greatest" to mean "I feel a passing fondness", they use "need" to mean "want". And as our society has become ever more juvenile ("Frightened for our Future", "The Adoration of Youth", "I Blame the Romantics", "Revisiting an Old Topic", "Changing Incentives", "In Defense of Standards", "Addenda to "In Defense of Standards"", "Bad Economics Part 9", "How Fast Things Change", "Deadly Cynicism", "Self-Serving Cynicism and Our Cultural Immaturity", "Hoist By Your Own Petard") more and more of us confuse the two words in speech as well. Fortunately, that usage has yet to become common in political discourse, as adults still manage to recognize how immature it sounds, and so the use of "need" in political debate is almost always the more common, but misleading, usage I mention elsewhere in this post.

----------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

I can't believe I forgot the most recent abuse of the word "need". When arguing for ObamaCare, or when "Conservative Lite" types argues for their "conservative" public option, the argument offered for ignoring the market was that medicine is "not like other goods and services", because "you need medicine". This is akin to the arguments offered for farm price supports ("Bad Economics Part 6") and is just as invalid. We do not "need" medicine in any meaningful sense. Yes, it prolongs life and makes it better, but almost any product makes life better, that is why we buy them. To increase enjoyment is the purpose of all trade. Medicine is no different. But "need" makes it sound so reasonable and filled with common sense that many bought into the absurd argument.