20 BASIC NEEDS and a MINIMALLY GOOD LIFE
In reading Allen Buchanan’s book about the Status Egalitarian Function, I am reminded of what Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations (Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article IV):
“By necessaries I understand not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without. A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England. The poorest creditable person of either sex would be ashamed to appear in public without them. In Scotland, custom has rendered them a necessary of life to the lowest order of men; but not to the same order of women, who may, without any discredit, walk about barefooted. In France they are necessaries neither to men nor to women, the lowest rank of both sexes appearing there publicly, without any discredit, sometimes in wooden shoes, and sometimes barefooted. Under necessaries, therefore, I comprehend not only those things which nature, but those things which the established rules of decency have rendered necessary to the lowest rank of people. All other things I call luxuries, without meaning by this appellation to throw the smallest degree of reproach upon the temperate use of them. Beer and ale, for example, in Great Britain, and wine, even in the wine countries, I call luxuries. A man of any rank may, without any reproach, abstain totally from tasting such liquors. Nature does not render them necessary for the support of life, and custom nowhere renders it indecent to live without them.”
I suppose the same thing could be said today about having a television, or internet access (and maybe also a cell phone?)–not “indispensably necessary for the support of life,” but being too poor to afford a TV or internet access is like being too poor back in 1776 to afford a linen shirt (or leather shoes if you were in England).
Buchanan would surely not argue that a life without TV or internet access is not a minimally good life (after all, I survived pretty well for the first 50 years of my life without internet) but he would probably argue that being too poor to afford a TV or internet access runs afoul of the Status Egalitarian function.
In reading Allen Buchanan’s book about the Status Egalitarian Function, I am reminded of what Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations (Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article IV):
“By necessaries I understand not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without. A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England. The poorest creditable person of either sex would be ashamed to appear in public without them. In Scotland, custom has rendered them a necessary of life to the lowest order of men; but not to the same order of women, who may, without any discredit, walk about barefooted. In France they are necessaries neither to men nor to women, the lowest rank of both sexes appearing there publicly, without any discredit, sometimes in wooden shoes, and sometimes barefooted. Under necessaries, therefore, I comprehend not only those things which nature, but those things which the established rules of decency have rendered necessary to the lowest rank of people. All other things I call luxuries, without meaning by this appellation to throw the smallest degree of reproach upon the temperate use of them. Beer and ale, for example, in Great Britain, and wine, even in the wine countries, I call luxuries. A man of any rank may, without any reproach, abstain totally from tasting such liquors. Nature does not render them necessary for the support of life, and custom nowhere renders it indecent to live without them.”
I suppose the same thing could be said today about having a television, or internet access (and maybe also a cell phone?)–not “indispensably necessary for the support of life,” but being too poor to afford a TV or internet access is like being too poor back in 1776 to afford a linen shirt (or leather shoes if you were in England).
Buchanan would surely not argue that a life without TV or internet access is not a minimally good life (after all, I survived pretty well for the first 50 years of my life without internet) but he would probably argue that being too poor to afford a TV or internet access runs afoul of the Status Egalitarian function.
Comments
Post a Comment