I wrote in "One More Meaningless Word and Its Consequences" that many terms, though they seem to have a definite meaning, really depend entirely upon perspective. It is hardly a new topic, I have been discussing it since "Two Perspectives" and  "The Right Way", continuing through "The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism" and on to the present. However, though I have discussed it often, it is a very important concept and one that people seem to fail to understand. Time and again, people talk about the importance of satisfying needs rather than wants, they denounce the waste of capitalism and so one. All of these arguments are founded, not on an objective understanding, but upon a mixture of ignoring many factors, and applying one's own prejudices to a situation as if they were absolute truths. In fact, for most people their inability to understand the free market and minimal government is the result of such misunderstandings. ("Misunderstanding the Market", "The Danger Inherent in Banning "Bad Ideas"")

Since it is such a simple concept, yet one that people still seem to fail to grasp, I decided to provide a mundane example. It is based upon arguments I have had with any number of people, my ex, my mother, friends and others, yet does not mirror, well not completely, any real life situation. Yet it is commonplace enough, I bet many readers will feel a bit of familiarity with it.

Let us imagine a married couple, Bob and Jane. Jane is a clothes horse, she owns enough clothes to fill two walk in closets. There is nothing she likes better than finding the perfect outfit. On the other hand, Bob is a normal male, who owns three pairs of shoes --- black, brown and casual --- and just enough dress clothes for work to get from one wash day to the next. He can't imagine why anyone would need to own more than two or three pairs of jeans, and even the jeans he owns he can't tell apart other than dirty and clean.

On the other hand, Bob is a book buyer. Despite the move to e-books, he still can't get over the desire to own a physical printed object. (Ok, I admit it, Bob is a bit like your author, though Jane is a composite of old girlfriends and my mother -- to be fair to my ex, she was not a clothes horse.)  He has shelves full of books, and often has small piles of books on his desk, as he is reading two or three at once, sometimes more. It is a habit which, for some reason, drives Jane crazy.

One day, when she is looking for space for her clothes, Jane begins to complain about all the space Bob's books take up, how he wastes so much room hoarding books. In her mind, after you have read a book, why keep it hanging around. Bob takes the complaints in good grace for a while, but finally, getting a bit frustrated, decides to point out that his books take up no more room than her clothing, and he needs his books as much as she needs that fortieth pair of shoes.

This is a silly example, I will grant, but it points out something we often forget, many things are important only because we make them so. Your necessity may be my luxury or even irrelevant to me. There is nothing that says one good is more or less important than another except the significance we place upon it. Yes, in a few cases, physical need makes us value some goods highly, but even then it is still a choice. There are people who go hungry to fulfill another desire, so it is not as if even physical demand is an absolute measure.

Thus, when someone argues we need teacher more than athletes, or policemen more than hairdressers, they are telling us nothing but their own priorities. ("Why Do They Earn So Much For Playing a Game? ") Granted, they may think their own priorities should be shared by everyone, may even make detailed arguments to demonstrate as much, but the fact remains, all of those arguments rest upon their hierarchy of values, if I value things differently, then their arguments are pointless.

This is not to say there are no rules in economics or politics, that there are no guidelines we must follow. What this says is that the goals, the choice of what we should pursue, is a given, based upon each individual's wishes at a given moment, and is not subject to argument, assessment or judgment. We see this when someone tries to tell us it is rational to prefer carrots to peas, but somehow we forget it when it comes to more complex desires. Yet the principle does not change, the goals we pursue are subjective, and not subject to argument.

We need to bear this in mind when we listen to arguments about how much better life would be if we would just restructure the economy, or change the government, so it would stop pandering to the masses and instead produce what we really need. Such plans always amount to nothing more than the speaking forcing his own set of priorities upon the rest of the world, and are no more likely to produce more satisfaction than would happen were Bob to begin collecting clothes, or Jane to fill shelves with books. ("Utopianism and Disaster", "The Threat of Perfection", "Life Is Not Fair - And Trying To Make It So Makes Things Worse")