Often when there is a debate about prohibiting, restricting, or permitting an object or service someone will make what I call the ‘need argument.’ It is very simple, they will point out that the person against the new restriction doesn’t really need whatever it is that the proponent is calling to ban or restrict.

It is an insidious tactic that has as its base assumption that the person proposing the restriction has already determined the ‘need’ and found it wanting. I reject the need argument nearly categorically. It is an argument designed to trap the person debating for access into a box where they must attempt to meet an ill-defined criteria held by the proponent or surrender and since the criteria is not something mutually agreed to but is instead always defined by the proponent it is something that cannot be met.

The call comes over and over, it comes in taxations, ‘they don’t need that money,’ it comes in healthcare ‘they don’t need that transition,’ it comes in legalities ‘they don’t need that marriage,’ it comes in the arts and entertainment, ‘they don’t need that filth or that violent game.’

It does not matter where it raises its head the ‘need argument’ is always an attempt to impose the concept, I don’t want that thing so you do not get it either.

If you are going to push for prohibitions or confiscations get a better argument, and there are always better arguments.