I will say it again; we have drifted off topic. The OP suggested a Mustachian political stance, and as I see it, Mustachianism specifies living with your means, and saving and investing. That is all. Repeat, that is all.
Mustachianism does have something to say about the pros and cons of one form of taxation over another, and about government funded health, education, and childcare, about which more below. Like many living outside the US, I am entertained by the strange political ideas held by many Americans, and the best cure for such ideas is to read some political philosophy, and absorb wisdom from the past. Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes have influenced my political views, and both had very down to earth views of politics. Both knew that some form of government was essential, and that the form of government, and the ways that taxation revenues were raised, were purely practical matters.
There is little point in anyone standing for political office on a Mustachian platform as an individual. A Mustachian political party means party discipline. If a Mustachian party actually gained office (Laughter), then by necessity it would have to add policies on matters which are not strictly Mustachian. Nothing wrong with that.
Thomas Hobbes, writing mid seventeenth century, famously declared that in the absence of government, ‘life is nasty, brutish and short.’ In his day, the ruler was only obliged to protect life, liberty and property, as Acroy has pointed out. President Assad of Syria is not protecting life, liberty and property in his realm, so his subjects are entitled to think he is not doing his job, as Hobbes would be quick to point out. It does not follow that the rebels in Syria would do any better if they succeeding in seizing power.
I have heard that Louis 14th, late in life, believed that if a monarch worked to improve the prosperity of his subjects, that monarch was working for himself, because a prosperous nation is stronger, and its monarch correspondingly more glorious. Louis was never one to knock back some royal glory. Some modern rulers, notably in Africa, would do well to consider this idea.
Nasty, brutish and short. Prosperity will fix most of these problems, but the free market does not adequately provide education and good health cover for all, and modern rulers have in it their power to eliminate or sharply reduce the brutish effects of poor education and inadequate health cover. Both Hobbes and Louis 14 would have been surprised, and perhaps, impressed.
Mustachiansim seeks to discourage conspicuous consumption, so a Value Added Tax is a good tax. This does not preclude other taxes.
Mustachianism seeks to encourage saving and investment, and compulsory superannuation, with associated tax benefits, for all employees is a good idea. Many rich countries, including Australia, where I come from, have such schemes.
