Contemporary Western societies, regardless of their governments’ political orientation, regard need as a value in accordance with the ideology of the welfare state. That is the single most conspicuous cause of the spread of poverty, inequality, and corruption.

You probably cannot support the above statement. But then, why not think about it again?

A straightforward example

We find needs as primary values not only written into many contemporary constitutions but also implicitly or even explicitly inscribed in many political decisions. It is common to say: every individual in a given community has a right to a job (since he needs it), a right to adequate housing (since a man needs shelter), a right to education (since he needs education), and so on.

Let’s examine situations in which needs are primary values by asking: who will meet those needs?

There are only two possibilities for who can be responsible for fulfilling needs as rights: either the individual himself or someone else.

Collective valuers of values

If the individual himself, then he is responsible for fulfilling his own needs. 

If someone else, who or what might that be? Parents? Husband or wife? Friends? It’s most likely an institution, since it’s pretty embarrassing to burden someone whose face they see every day with the responsibility of meeting their needs. If relatives help each other out, that stems from the natural laws of kinship. If friends help each other out, that stems from reciprocity. 

But here, we are talking about basic needs. However, no one likes to depend on friends and relatives when basic needs come into play. In such a case, there are institutions that we tend to understand as responsible. And such a widespread institutional “help” is the problem.

Which institutions? Private ones? If it’s a private institution (like a private business), no owner or manager would likely hire someone just because they need a job. The person hired most likely needs a job, but is hired because of the expected return in the form of the products of the work. The reason for hiring is not to satisfy basic needs but to exchange values.

This leaves only governmental institutions capable of meeting basic individual needs not satisfied through commercial exchange, kinship, or reciprocity.

Governmental institutions as value providers

The paradox is that the majority of a welfare state’s citizens understand the role of the state not as more or less than the provider of goods that satisfy basic needs. That is exactly the definition of a welfare state. The state that secures that all fare well. 

But then, who decides whether a person’s need for better housing or a better job is legitimate? Who can compare the need of a single unemployed mother with children for a 50m2 apartment with the need of a young disabled couple?

If a need is a value, no arbiter can measure it objectively. It is always a group that decides, a group of individuals with their own needs. If they, as arbiters, see a need as a fundamental value, it is logical that they fulfill their own basic needs first. If they don’t, they are acting against the premise that needs are primary values. Primary values should be respected. Primary values bind a group or a society together.

It follows that if needs are primary values, those who decide which needs should be met are those whose primary needs have already been satisfied. If they are in need, they are first in line. This is the root of socially boosted inequality, poverty for those who do not decide, and corruption.

What about non-governmental institutions?

First of all, there are few NGOs that no longer rely on government subsidies. Such NGOs are thus mere extensions of the government in the context of our post. Only fully privately funded NGOs whose mission is charity can be taken seriously in this respect. They may define their mission as helping those in need. In such a case, their operations are transparent to all individuals and privately owned corporations (again, corporations partially or fully owned by the state are excluded), so they may define a need as they wish. They transparently define a need as a value, and this is the only exception to our rule.

However, even in this latest and quite rare case, there is a risk that potential recipients come to understand their needs as values. Their needs are values for private NGOs, but that does not mean they could take their own needs as values.

A need is not a value

A need should never be conflated with value at any societal level because it cannot be measured. This is my main argument.

A need is integral to everyone’s life, and the defining feature of life is that no one can live it. If I can’t live your life, I can’t meet your needs. I can’t eat (fulfill a need for food) in your place. I can’t live in a house instead of you. I can’t work, express myself … instead of you. No NGO is likely to live your life to meet your needs; any governmental institution even less so.

All who live in the dream that someone (or some institution) will meet their needs deprive themselves of life and of being human. A society based on needs, any kind of needs, is, in reality, a totalitarian (collectivist) society with an elite that rules over depersonalized vegetables.

Decentralization

When it comes to needs and governing bodies, brains are a good example. Brains have no command center, no elite part of the brain that rules over the rest of the “lesser” brains. Every part, every neuron, is equally essential. What makes brains powerful creatures is the constant evaluation and re-evaluation of connections. Again, this evaluation is not done by a governing entity within the brain but by each neuron, as it is connected.

Values, the main governing principles of any society (from the family, club, and state to supranational societies), should be understood as neurons in the brain. Values are not given by God or a collectivist authority. They are constantly negotiated and renegotiated between individuals. They are also constantly negotiated and renegotiated in the marketplace of values (memes), just as commodities are in markets. Just as there should be no entity that sets a price for a commodity, there should be no entity that is the sole evaluator of values.

For practical purposes, we can identify professionals who extract the prevailing values of others (this profession is called branding), but we should think of them as enablers, not evaluators. We should not think (as we unfortunately do) that they are owners of those values. They enable the real owners to understand and use their values more efficiently. As soon as we start thinking of any group as evaluators of collective values, we act like someone who would ascribe the highest and ultimate authority to the eyes because they see better than the other body parts.

Homonism

Life can only be sustained in a state of constant disequilibrium, a state of constant negotiation and renegotiation. Man is the only actor in this market of life. What is certain is that in this market, he can only exchange commodities (in the form of products and memes) to satisfy his own needs. He must barter. No one can exchange in his place – so singular homo instead of abstract man, and homonism instead of humanism.

Welfare society

The concept of a welfare state implies that all fare well. What is “well” remains to be answered by the governing body. The governing body of the welfare state thus lives the lives of the population it governs.

Following our brain analogy, it is easy to conclude that the only sustainable and fair organization is a welfare society. A society of individuals who constantly manage individual needs.