Want vs Need

[ValleyGal]

I don't think our government has tried to tell us what we do or don't need. They are giving directives, but not indicating that people only need to go out once every two weeks, or that we do not need fresh produce. The directive is to only go out as needed, and to limit it to once or twice a week, to limit personal supplies so everyone has enough for a little while rather than a few for a long time. There are principles by which to make our own decisions - much like the Bible. We are not specifically told that we must live in a certain location or that we must marry a specific person or choose a specific career. Instead, we have guidelines and principles by which to choose for ourselves. In the same way, we are given the directive to get groceries once a week, we are not told what to put into our cart.

Here is a new spin on a want versus a need. The government funds our program, so we are privvy to a little more information based on the direction of our work. We were just informed that we should expect to work from home now until at least December, and avoid public places. "Skilled" essential workers are not easily replaceable, so they are trying to protect us, and if those are the directives for us, then the general public should take that as a big clue... stay home! Yes, now my "needs" have changed a little. Maybe the ex and I don't "need" two cars and I can pull the insurance off mine as long as I can borrow his from time to time. Or maybe we now need to go to the grocery very early every morning for the next month and stock up on our two packages of toilet paper we're allowed. Or maybe it's time to invest in face masks and tons of coffee filters to slip into the pocket. Maybe it's time to start meal planning so we eat fresh for the first 3 days a week, frozen the last 4 days a week, and only get groceries once a week instead of twice.

I do think we need to justify what we need. Sure all our needs are different and will be different at different stages of the pandemic. But we should justify whether we need something, since we are trying to keep the virus under relative control. And no, I don't think the government needs to justify their directions. Most people would not be able to cope well with the idea that this will be going on until December. I mean, people can't even seem to handle two weeks! There would be fear and outrage if they told us the whole truth. Most people can't handle stress like you and I can, and the whole truth would likely push many over the edge.

And the toilet paper guy who made a boatload of money? Yes, he made a business decision causing a shortage, which then caused panic and limbic-state hoarding for buyers. And unfortunately, even I have to do this now because he and others have created a shortage which means I have to purchase what I can, when I can. I might stand in those early morning lineups at Costco for ten days straight before I can get my hands on a couple of packages of toilet paper. If I don't start now, I will run out before I manage to get my hands on some.

 

[tango]

I don't think our government has tried to tell us what we do or don't need. They are giving directives, but not indicating that people only need to go out once every two weeks, or that we do not need fresh produce.

Seeing videos of things like a man dragged off a bus by police for not wearing a mask (which was advisory rather than mandatory last I heard) aren't encouraging. I saw the video posted by a guy I know who's usually a very rational person so my first thought isn't that it's some kind of tinfoil-hat media outlet.

The directive is to only go out as needed, and to limit it to once or twice a week, to limit personal supplies so everyone has enough for a little while rather than a few for a long time. There are principles by which to make our own decisions - much like the Bible. We are not specifically told that we must live in a certain location or that we must marry a specific person or choose a specific career. Instead, we have guidelines and principles by which to choose for ourselves. In the same way, we are given the directive to get groceries once a week, we are not told what to put into our cart.

At government level we've got a whole host of different things coming through. We're told we can go out to exercise but not to crowd. You can go fishing but can't go to work. Take a wild guess what happens when people are told they can go fishing - they line rivers and lakes shoulder to shoulder. But it's too dangerous to go to work. As soon as the government says "you can only go out if it's necessary" we shouldn't be surprised if people suddely decide that a trip to get a candy bar is "necessary" if the reality is they just want a change of scenery.

Here is a new spin on a want versus a need. The government funds our program, so we are privvy to a little more information based on the direction of our work. We were just informed that we should expect to work from home now until at least December, and avoid public places. "Skilled" essential workers are not easily replaceable, so they are trying to protect us, and if those are the directives for us, then the general public should take that as a big clue... stay home!

If they shut the economy down until December they might as well institute full-blown communism because by then just about every business that doesn't work online will have shut down. Already we're seeing businesses closing their doors permanently and more are wondering how long they can operate without any income at all. In an economy where one man's spending is another man's income the knock-on effects will be devastating - probably far more devastating than the virus appears to be based on current death rates. That's before the costs in terms of social decay, mental health, domestic abuse etc. That level of unemployment and hopelessness is likely to lead to a huge rise in suicides as so many people see little hope for the future, and the kind of social unrest that readily allows extremists to rise to power. What happens if the economy is shut down for months, tenants can't pay their rent and homeowners can't pay their mortgages, the property market goes into freefall and untold millions of people end up homeless? It's not going to end well.

For good measure when dairy farmers start selling their herds and farmers in general stop growing food there's another disaster looming. Never mind, the Fed can just print more money and hope for the best. That seems to be their current plan.

Even so, the universal "stay home" remains overstated. If people are concerned about spreading the virus a better summary would be "keep your distance". Maintain as much that is normal as possible, just keep a safe distance from people.

Yes, now my "needs" have changed a little. Maybe the ex and I don't "need" two cars and I can pull the insurance off mine as long as I can borrow his from time to time. Or maybe we now need to go to the grocery very early every morning for the next month and stock up on our two packages of toilet paper we're allowed. Or maybe it's time to invest in face masks and tons of coffee filters to slip into the pocket. Maybe it's time to start meal planning so we eat fresh for the first 3 days a week, frozen the last 4 days a week, and only get groceries once a week instead of twice.

A lot of this sort of thing makes sense anyway, but even then if you pull the insurance on one car and don't drive it you'll have problems with it if it sits unused for 8-9 months. Chances are it's cheaper to pay the second insurance premium and alternate which car you take.

I do think we need to justify what we need. Sure all our needs are different and will be different at different stages of the pandemic. But we should justify whether we need something, since we are trying to keep the virus under relative control.

Who are we justifying things to? I think one of the very tenets of being free is that we don't need to justify things. Otherwise we end up in all sorts of silly situations. There's a world of difference between being considerate of others and trying to justify whether we need something. Last time my wife and I went grocery shopping we bought some steak. There's no way we can possibly justify it being an actual need - we could live just fine without steak. But we saw a good piece of steak for sale and decided we wanted it. That's all the justification we need.

And no, I don't think the government needs to justify their directions.

If we are allegedly a free nation the government must justify anything it does to restrict freedom. If we argue any differently we can't claim to be free. If you're not allowed outside your home without permission from Nanny State then the country is one step from being a giant prison camp.

Most people would not be able to cope well with the idea that this will be going on until December. I mean, people can't even seem to handle two weeks! There would be fear and outrage if they told us the whole truth. Most people can't handle stress like you and I can, and the whole truth would likely push many over the edge.

I think there's far more concern than whether people would cope with an idea. Short of a wholescale government takeover of almost the entire private sector this cannot go on until December. How many businesses can survive nine months of having bills to pay but no income? How many tenants can go nine months without a paycheck but still pay rent? How many homeowners can go nine months without a paycheck but still pay their mortgage? A terrifying percentage of people couldn't find $400 in an emergency and that was before this hit. When people live paycheck to paycheck how can they even afford basic groceries and utilities if Nanny State says they aren't allowed to even earn a living for nine months?

And the toilet paper guy who made a boatload of money? Yes, he made a business decision causing a shortage, which then caused panic and limbic-state hoarding for buyers. And unfortunately, even I have to do this now because he and others have created a shortage which means I have to purchase what I can, when I can. I might stand in those early morning lineups at Costco for ten days straight before I can get my hands on a couple of packages of toilet paper. If I don't start now, I will run out before I manage to get my hands on some.

People doing that certainly don't help but it's also worth knowing that the simple fact of people who would normally be at work being at home disrupts the supply chain immensely. Toilet paper manufacturers know what sort of balance to strike between domestic and commercial toilet paper (commercial is usually lower quality and on larger rolls). When everybody is sent home at very short notice the demand for commercial paper collapses while the demand for domestic paper surges. The supply chain takes time to adapt. People like the guy you mention certainly disrupt everything, but even then people buying more than they need is arguably an entirely rational decision.

If you're familiar with the Prisoner's Dilemma, how much toilet paper to buy isn't entirely like the Prisoner's Dilemma on steroid, where there are thousands of other prisoners and any one of them could tattle on you. If everybody can be trusted to do the right thing the supply chain is more likely to cope but when everybody knows that it only takes a few to stockpile before they are left in the cold it's actually an entirely rational decision to get in early to stock up. I should stress "stock up" as opposed to "stockpile", but if you don't know when you'll next get chance to buy something you're more likely to buy more of it while you can.

All that said, it's rather curious to see such a focus on toilet paper. If all else fails there are other ways to clean. As it happens (and for reasons entirely unrelated to the toilet paper shortage) I have a length of flexible hose attached to the bath tap. If push comes to shove it would function as a makeshift bidet. I'd rather not go there but, all things being equal, I can go without toilet paper longer than I can go without food.

 

[ValleyGal]

Even so, the universal "stay home" remains overstated. If people are concerned about spreading the virus a better summary would be "keep your distance". Maintain as much that is normal as possible, just keep a safe distance from people.

I guess we are lucky. Our directive, both federal and provincial, is to maintain a distance of 2 meters (6 feet). We are told to self-isolate/quarantine if we are sick or have been out of the country or in a place where we may have been infected. No one is dictating that we must stay home. They have dictated how some businesses can run, though - including extra protective measures, closing down dining rooms, closing non-essential goods and services.

Again, though, what is a need? My house gets very very hot during July and August as we get the late afternoon and evening direct sun. I want an air conditioner, but I would "need" at the very least a fan or two just in my bedroom (where I work and sleep 16 hours a day). I think I need a ceiling fan and would need an electrician to install it - in addition to a standing fan that I can plug in, for good air movement and cooling. Are installation services considered "essential"? It is if I can justify it.

There's no way we can possibly justify it being an actual need - we could live just fine without steak. But we saw a good piece of steak for sale and decided we wanted it. That's all the justification we need.

Since you were already getting groceries, the groceries themselves are a need. They just happened to have a grocery you wanted, so you bought it. If you had decided that you should go out and get a steak, and only went out just for the steak, then no, it is not justifiable and therefore not a need.

I think the governments should justify their directives, yes, but I think it would be foolish to expect full disclosure of everything they know. Like I say, most people could not handle that kind of truth. And I also think it's foolish of us the public, if we do not take their directives seriously. There is a reason they are creating directives, and it's not just about keeping us healthy; it's about flattening the curve so our hospitals and healthcare systems are not completely overwhelmed, leaving them without supplies.

The needs of the greater good outweigh my individual wants, and while we're at it, let;s throw "rights" into the mix. Jesus selflessly gave up his rights for our sake. Shouldn't we also give up our rights for the sake of the greater good? I'm willing...

 

[tango]

I guess we are lucky. Our directive, both federal and provincial, is to maintain a distance of 2 meters (6 feet). We are told to self-isolate/quarantine if we are sick or have been out of the country or in a place where we may have been infected. No one is dictating that we must stay home. They have dictated how some businesses can run, though - including extra protective measures, closing down dining rooms, closing non-essential goods and services.

Where I live there is a stay home order but it's so vaguely worded as to be all but useless, and is riddled with inconsistencies and absurdity. Non-essential businesses are required to close, although every business is essential if the owner wants to do wild and crazy things (like paying their bills, covering payroll etc). I'm allowed to cut my lawn but apparently lawn care services are "non essential" so I'm not allowed to pay someone else to cut my lawn. I can't buy a pair of shoes from my local independent shoe store, where I could easily keep 10-15 feet or more away from everyone, but can squash into Walmart and buy a pair of shoes there. If I crash my car the garage's service department can repair it for me but if it's beyond repair I'm not allowed to buy a new car.

Again, though, what is a need? My house gets very very hot during July and August as we get the late afternoon and evening direct sun. I want an air conditioner, but I would "need" at the very least a fan or two just in my bedroom (where I work and sleep 16 hours a day). I think I need a ceiling fan and would need an electrician to install it - in addition to a standing fan that I can plug in, for good air movement and cooling. Are installation services considered "essential"? It is if I can justify it.

This is where the discussion of "want" and "need" becomes very vague. Strictly speaking what we need, from a survival perspective, is just enough warmth to stay alive and just enough food to get by. Never mind the knock-on effects, if we really want to be strict about what is a "need" we're talking survival only. Beyond that becomes little more than posturing.

You don't need a fan at all, you would like one for comfort. If it goes to 100 degrees in your room you can crack a couple of windows and put up with the heat. That's what the Amish do, and they manage in 100+ degree heat with no electricity at all. A bit of sweat never hurt anyone, right?

Since you were already getting groceries, the groceries themselves are a need. They just happened to have a grocery you wanted, so you bought it. If you had decided that you should go out and get a steak, and only went out just for the steak, then no, it is not justifiable and therefore not a need.

Here's where things descend into wishing everyone else would think just like we do. Perhaps a trip out just to get a steak is frivolous but in many ways we have to ask, what of it? If I realised I had run out of milk and went to get milk, and picked up a steak while I was out, does that count as a "need"? I could have had something other than cereal, I could have drunk my coffee black, I could arguably have gone without coffee at all. When we start expecting other people to contain their behavior based on what we think is a need we tread a very narrow line - it's easy to judge someone else but in many ways the best solution is to simply mind our own business. The simple fact is that if we are free (as we allegedly still are) then "I want a steak" is all the justification I need to go and buy a steak. Otherwise we end up in endless arguments over whether me walking along the meat aisle increases the risk of other people nearby, all for a steak that is a luxury. Perhaps the store should remove the steak and replace it with state-sanctioned boiled cabbage or something. Somewhere along the line we have to accept that even trying to define the term "need" leads either nowhere or to something one step above starvation rations.

To give you a specific example, a very dear friend of mine is pushing 80 years old and is immune-compromised with a heart condition. At a time like this I wouldn't plan on visiting her, although I would call by phone to make sure she is OK. It's not for me to decide to show up at her house and risk infecting her, even though I show no symptoms and haven't had any cold-like symptoms for several weeks now. But if she asked me to visit her I figure she's a big girl, she's all grown up and she can decide for herself whether she wants to take the risk of being infected. In her condition getting this virus is likely to be a death sentence but even so that's for her to decide whether she wants to take the chance.

I think the governments should justify their directives, yes, but I think it would be foolish to expect full disclosure of everything they know. Like I say, most people could not handle that kind of truth. And I also think it's foolish of us the public, if we do not take their directives seriously. There is a reason they are creating directives, and it's not just about keeping us healthy; it's about flattening the curve so our hospitals and healthcare systems are not completely overwhelmed, leaving them without supplies.

There's a difference between telling everything they know and justifying directives. I understand the desire to "flatten the curve" but the questions still remain whether the "cure" is more dangerous than the virus. There also comes a point when people need to be given information and allowed to make up their own minds. When directives allow me to shop at a crowded Walmart but not at my local quiet shoe store it's hard to believe it's just about public safety. When you can stand shoulder-to-shoulder along a river bank fishing but are expected to not visit a friend and chat across your living room from maybe 10 feet away, it's not about public safety. Throwing millions of people onto unemployment because someone decided to shut down businesses arbitrarily, risking the permanent closure of many businesses and consequential long-term unemployment, with all the associated problems for mental health in the future, it's hard to believe that public safety is the uppermost concern.

It's good to consider the healthcare system but even then we have to ask comparable questions about anything else we might be doing, especially in the context of the whole "want vs need" discussion. Going for a drive just for the pleasure of it, taking in quiet country roads and enjoying the views, is something nobody needs to do. It's an activity purely for pleasure. Yet it creates a risk of serious injury or death, both for us and for any other road user. All it takes is a lapse in concentration, a moment of distraction trying to identify a bird or animal, or simply misjudging a bend, and we could cause massive problems for ourselves or an innocent other road user. Should we be telling people, as a matter of routine, that they must not use their vehicles for anything non-essential? When all the silliness with this virus has passed, should be prohibit people from using their private motor vehicle to go and see a friend for dinner? It's non-essential and risks imposing a load on the healthcare system. Should we prohibit hiking in remote woodlands, on the basis an accident could require a helicopter crew to risk their lives extracting the unfortunate hiker who was doing something nobody could possibly describe as a need? Where do we draw the line?

The needs of the greater good outweigh my individual wants, and while we're at it, let;s throw "rights" into the mix. Jesus selflessly gave up his rights for our sake. Shouldn't we also give up our rights for the sake of the greater good? I'm willing...

What any one of us is willing to do isn't the issue here. What matters is when the government dictates "the greater good" it sets a dangerous precedent. Would you be willing to be medically put to death in a controlled environment so a dozen people waiting transplant could live, thanks to harvesting your organs? If not, be careful with the "greater good" argument.

Even without such extreme examples the simple reality is that freedom is important. Whether or not you or I choose to exercise a freedom is a secondary issue. The likes of you or I might make a decision that we don't want to be jerks, that we want to consider other people, that we want to act the way Jesus might have acted. But we're not talking about legislating the way we choose to live our lives, we are legislating the way a nation is mandated to behave. If I am not free to be an apocalyptic jerk then nobody can claim I am free at all - whether I choose to be a jerk or not isn't the point.

 

[ValleyGal]

When we start expecting other people to contain their behavior based on what we think is a need we tread a very narrow line

In these times, I think it's necessary. If we can be charged with getting too close to someone, we better be able to justify it as a need versus a want. Like you said - a need for one is not a need for another.

There also comes a point when people need to be given information and allowed to make up their own minds.

People don't make their own minds up well though. They're still going to think it won't happen to them and they will be out partying and putting others at risk. I have a right to stay 2 meters apart from others, and yet others keep invading my space. So just providing information is not enough.

What any one of us is willing to do isn't the issue here. What matters is when the government dictates "the greater good" it sets a dangerous precedent.

This concerns me. The government decided it is for the greater good that murderers should go to jail for life. They decided speed limits are in the best interest of the greater good. And currently, they are deciding that staying 2 meters away from others and staying home as much as you can are in the greater good. Sometimes they have to make decisions we don't really like, even though it invades your rights and freedoms, because it is in the greater good. Just because you have a right to certain freedoms, sometimes those rights need to be suspended for the needs of the greater good.

You don't need a fan at all, you would like one for comfort.

If I want to be halfway productive and be mentally and emotionally present for my clients, yes, I need a fan!

 

[tango]

In these times, I think it's necessary. If we can be charged with getting too close to someone, we better be able to justify it as a need versus a want. Like you said - a need for one is not a need for another.

The trouble with this is it's still a matter of balancing one against another. To quarantine entire states and entire nations because some will suffer otherwise is akin to banning everybody from driving because some don't get the message that drinking and driving isn't allowed.

People don't make their own minds up well though. They're still going to think it won't happen to them and they will be out partying and putting others at risk. I have a right to stay 2 meters apart from others, and yet others keep invading my space. So just providing information is not enough.

Here what you're essentially saying is you don't like what other people are doing so everybody should have to stay home.

This concerns me. The government decided it is for the greater good that murderers should go to jail for life. They decided speed limits are in the best interest of the greater good. And currently, they are deciding that staying 2 meters away from others and staying home as much as you can are in the greater good. Sometimes they have to make decisions we don't really like, even though it invades your rights and freedoms, because it is in the greater good. Just because you have a right to certain freedoms, sometimes those rights need to be suspended for the needs of the greater good.

Do you not see the difference in the arguments here? The person who has made a decision to murder another person gets to spend some time in jail. The person who has an outside chance of having a disease that they might transmit if they happen to get close enough to someone else is a totally different situation. There's a world of difference between "you can use the road any time you want, in any vehicle that passes a fairly basic safety check, in compliance with a fairly basic set of rules" and "you're not allowed out of your house except under very narrow circumstances dictated by Nanny State, until further notice, and you're not even allowed to earn a paycheck until Nanny State permits it. By the way, your bills are still due."

What's the difference between what you are proposing and a permanent shutdown, with only those deemed safe by Nanny State allowed out at all and only at times approved by Nanny State? Because, you know, you never know who might snap and kill someone so perhaps it's best to just lock everyone up. It's for the greater good, after all. Every single person you pass in the street might be some kind of psychopath who will kill you just for looking at them the wrong way. Every single motorist you pass on the road might be a drunk driver, an unlicensed driver, asleep at the wheel. Any of those people might end your life in a moment. We accept this as just part of the cost of a free society, to the point we don't even think about it. But when that person might have a virus that in all probability won't do us much harm at all we not only applaud Nanny State for stamping on our freedoms but we call for even more restrictions.

If you really want to take the greater good argument, how about this option - let the virus have a small percentage, let it have the weakest. A few get weeded out from society and the 98% or so who won't die of the disease aren't put at massively increased risk of mental health problems, suicide, bankruptcy etc? Maybe that would be a better argument "for the greater good" than expecting millions of healthy people to lose their jobs, their businesses, their livelihoods, maybe their homes and families. Throw in the spike in calls to suicide hotlines and the spike in domestic violence and child abuse and the cost of not just letting the virus take the weakest rises even further. If you want "the greater good" it logically makes more sense to sacrifice the 2% or less that will die from the virus for the benefit of 98% than it does to expect the 98% to suffer ever-more problems for the sake of the 2%, right?

I get that the above argument is abhorrent in so many ways. The trouble is it's a more logical approach if the intention is to focus on "the greater good" than expecting everybody to carry a huge and open-ended cost to save the few.

If I want to be halfway productive and be mentally and emotionally present for my clients, yes, I need a fan!

You could learn to live without one. The Amish manage it. Maybe this just demonstrates the blurred line between "want" and "need"

 

[ValleyGal]

To quarantine entire states and entire nations because some will suffer otherwise is akin to banning everybody from driving because some don't get the message that drinking and driving isn't allowed.

Being and getting sick isn't illegal, though. But! It IS illegal (in BC) to knowingly infect someone else and it is criminal to attempt to infect someone (assault), as in the case where a young woman was arrested for spitting on a cashier who refused to allow someone to purchase more than the allotted 2 packages of toilet paper.

I'm not convinced it's because someone might suffer. This is a new virus, and without containment it could have been a whole lot worse, for a whole lot more people. It's not because "some will suffer" - it's because scientists didn not know how the virus will behave, there is no cure, and it puts a whole lot of people in high risk. And even high risk people need to go out for groceries. Need. Not want.

The person who has made a decision to murder another person gets to spend some time in jail. The person who has an outside chance of having a disease that they might transmit if they happen to get close enough to someone else is a totally different situation.

Again, being and getting sick isn't illegal. It is illegal if you put others at risk, especially if the other person dies.

It's a wonder to me that some are not willing to put their wants aside for the sake of other's needs.