Is the MMM community really like the book Atlas Shrugged?

[hoping2retire35]

I have wondered this for a while and was reminded of it in another thread. I searched but never came up where someone actually suggested that what we are creating is similar to what happens in the book.

If everyone here is retiring early, putting in the minimal years of productivity and work and then living off of passive income is this not too dissimilar to what John Galt is trying to do in the book?

Disclaimer; never actually read the book just hear about it and read some reviews of it, etc. I think I saw the cheap movie a couple of years ago.

[BDWW]

No.

[scottish]

Let me think about that.     Hmmm.   Nope.

[bacchi]

No.

If they were similar, BDDW would've written a 15 page diatribe in the 3rd person.

[Her]

That's not at all what John Galt was doing. I don't actually think Ayn Rand would approve of Mustachianism much.

[WildJager]

The book is actually an interesting read.  But no, in that book the concept is most people sluff of off those who are hyper productive.  As a result, those productive people quit society do they could build a productive free market utopia.  We're kind of being productive and saving our money instead of buying fancy things so we can stop being productive in the traditional sense.

And the "good guys" in that book really liked to buy fancy things...

[KayakMom]

That's not at all what John Galt was doing. I don't actually think Ayn Rand would approve of Mustachianism much.

Really? I think she would.  Ayn Rand was all about people being self-sufficient.  If you are clever enough to figure out how to support yourself without maintaining a full-time job and without stealing (legally or illegally) from others, than you are good.

[Her]

That's not at all what John Galt was doing. I don't actually think Ayn Rand would approve of Mustachianism much.

Really? I think she would.  Ayn Rand was all about people being self-sufficient.  If you are clever enough to figure out how to support yourself without maintaining a full-time job and without stealing (legally or illegally) from others, than you are good.

I'm definitely not a scholar of philosophy, and I'm mostly drawing from the memory of reading The Fountainhead my senior year of high school, so I might be completely off base. Coming from that angle I can see it, but there's parts of Mustachianism that I think don't jibe with objectivism. For example, see MMM's post praising Obamacare, and most FIRE bloggers' expectation of withdrawing social security one day. Rand also saw "productive achievement as [man's] noblest activity." So on the one hand the pursuit of personal happiness outside of society's expectations fits the ideals of Objectivism, but on the other withdrawing from the workplace instead of continuing to be productive and create might not. (Productive in the monetary sense, anyway.) Like I feel like the idea of ER might count as wasted potential according to the tenants of objectivism.

This really is just based on my own curious reading though. I've never studied philosophy and might be interpreting it totally wrong.

[Kris]

Maybe you could have read Atlas Shrugged first, instead of posting a thread that basically makes no sense to a thinking person.

Mod Edit: That second part was unnecessary.

[powskier]

Maybe you could have read Atlas Shrugged first, instead of posting a thread that basically makes no sense to a thinking person.

+1 two thumbs up.

[hoping2retire35]

If everyone here is retiring early, putting in the minimal years of productivity and work and then living off of passive income is this not too dissimilar to what John Galt is trying to do in the book?

Ok, seems like I didn't make my point clear. Obviously Ayn rand and MMPete are philosophically worlds apart, that was not what I was getting unless it is just irony. Two different people have a following where it is suggested that people take their frustration with the world(their jobs in particular) and remove themselves from it. Obviously, people here think that if more peoplewere to do this, and take other mustachian traits, society would greatly benefit. Whereas in rand's world technological progress slows or stops and even more mundane problems cannot be solved.

I brought this up because I think the people in both scenarios are doing basically the same thing when it comes to people continuing to be productive; however the envisioned outcomes are vastly different. Why is this?

[bobechs]

Nope, no real parallel there either.

[GetItRight]

No, as mustachians remain invested in the market and may well continue productive but pleasant endeavors in retirement from the traditional workforce. Going Galt is pulling out entirely, primarily for reasons of too much being stolen through taxes and too much restriction on personal and business actions and transactions with the threat of violence at the end of the barrel of a government gun.

Mustachians tend to stay part of taxable society. Most seem to worship government  and praise taxation as virtuous though hypocritically try to minimize tax liability within legal means. Could just be a vocal minority though. Regardless, going Galt is not at all like typical FIRE.

[Radagast]

If everyone here is retiring early, putting in the minimal years of productivity and work and then living off of passive income is this not too dissimilar to what John Galt is trying to do in the book?

It could just as well be the opposite, but the politics here do seem to lean liberal and libertarian.

An argument I saw recently makes a comparison to Benjamin Franklin, working very hard in the younger years so that we can later dabble in a leisurely life of science and politics.

[Bertram]

Two different people have a following where it is suggested that people take their frustration with the world(their jobs in particular) and remove themselves from it.

No, the motivations for stopping working are very different.
The way they remove themselves is different.

Obviously, people here think that if more peoplewere to do this, and take other mustachian traits, society would greatly benefit.

I haven't seen this argument made, in fact I have seen the opposite argument being made - that if a lot of people were mustachian the economy would in the short term be harmed by it. Spending is what drives the economy and what helps everybody get those stock market returns.

There is however an argument that by consuming less resources the world would be better off overall. That's pretty difficult to quantify and weigh against the negative effects for the economy.

I brought this up because I think the people in both scenarios are doing basically the same thing when it comes to people continuing to be productive

I do not see the similarities at all. Other than in a cargo-cult very superficial way.

[FrugalToque]

Believe it or not, we've discussed the similarities - and crucial differences - between Mustachian philosophy and Randian Libertarianism a lot around here.

On the one hand, yes, both emphasize self-reliance, a can-do attitude and producing a product or service that your fellow people find valuable.  Be a lawyer, computer programmer, carpenter, welder, you name it.

On the other hand, Mustachianism recognizes the value of a society where people aren't constantly trying to screw each other over, and where people can work together, cooperate and achieve something without being labelled "The Socialist" and consequently doomed to failure (a pretty basic theme in Fountainhead: bossing people around is good; accepting advice from your underlings is bad).

Mustachianism enjoys the efficiency of publicly shared commodities, without the Randian worry about "second hand men" and various moochers.  We can have public libraries, public fire departments, public schools and on and on while realizing that some services are more efficiently delivered this way.

It's amusing to me, because, having read Fountainhead, I side with xkcd's Randall Munroe ( https://xkcd.com/1049/ ):  I get about 90% of what Rand says, but she loses me because the last 10% always devolves down to, "therefore, be as much of a greedy jerk to everyone around you as possible."

Toque.

[hoping2retire35]

Believe it or not, we've discussed the similarities - and crucial differences - between Mustachian philosophy and Randian Libertarianism a lot around here.

On the one hand, yes, both emphasize self-reliance, a can-do attitude and producing a product or service that your fellow people find valuable.  Be a lawyer, computer programmer, carpenter, welder, you name it.

On the other hand, Mustachianism recognizes the value of a society where people aren't constantly trying to screw each other over, and where people can work together, cooperate and achieve something without being labelled "The Socialist" and consequently doomed to failure (a pretty basic theme in Fountainhead: bossing people around is good; accepting advice from your underlings is bad).

Mustachianism enjoys the efficiency of publicly shared commodities, without the Randian worry about "second hand men" and various moochers.  We can have public libraries, public fire departments, public schools and on and on while realizing that some services are more efficiently delivered this way.

It's amusing to me, because, having read Fountainhead, I side with xkcd's Randall Munroe ( https://xkcd.com/1049/ ):  I get about 90% of what Rand says, but she loses me because the last 10% always devolves down to, "therefore, be as much of a greedy jerk to everyone around you as possible."

Toque.

WOOT! WOOT! The great FrugalToque has commented on my thread!

anywho...+1 to your point. BTW, I did read fountainhead and because I found it so disagreeable I never read Atlas Shrugged, and if I ever do it will probably just be the last 60 pages of diatribe or whatever. I was never meaning to suggest that their philosophies of life were similar(in fact I would argue they are very dissimilar), just that coincidentally they could produce the same effect, i.e. a large, productive, percent of the workforce avoids staying in their normal roles, and wanting the forum to discuss how this could effect the economy.

Basically, IMO, as more people stop working and participating in the economy, in a 'normal' way, things begin to change. Mustachians, tend to focus on the consumer and resource side of things while Ayn Rand focuses on the productivity of society, are there things we mustachians are missing by not considering what will happen as these workers leave? I believe the fact that many of these workers are heavily STEM related this could only exacerbate this dilemma.

[GuitarStv]

Believe it or not, we've discussed the similarities - and crucial differences - between Mustachian philosophy and Randian Libertarianism a lot around here.

On the one hand, yes, both emphasize self-reliance, a can-do attitude and producing a product or service that your fellow people find valuable.  Be a lawyer, computer programmer, carpenter, welder, you name it.

On the other hand, Mustachianism recognizes the value of a society where people aren't constantly trying to screw each other over, and where people can work together, cooperate and achieve something without being labelled "The Socialist" and consequently doomed to failure (a pretty basic theme in Fountainhead: bossing people around is good; accepting advice from your underlings is bad).

Mustachianism enjoys the efficiency of publicly shared commodities, without the Randian worry about "second hand men" and various moochers.  We can have public libraries, public fire departments, public schools and on and on while realizing that some services are more efficiently delivered this way.

It's amusing to me, because, having read Fountainhead, I side with xkcd's Randall Munroe ( https://xkcd.com/1049/ ):  I get about 90% of what Rand says, but she loses me because the last 10% always devolves down to, "therefore, be as much of a greedy jerk to everyone around you as possible."

Toque.

+1

Pretty much agree with everything said here.

[AlanStache]

No.

Regarding a sort of brain drain from STEM, maybe maybe not.  Firstly MMM will not have the numbers to make real change in the larger country economically. 

Buts secondly and more interestingly post FIRE I expect to be more active in open source or community based STEM projects locally and online.  This volunteer work would likely be on things that are not commercially viable yet still result in a benefit to people.  Perhaps I will work on a bioinformatics project or an after school engineering team.  Rand might discount the value of this as there is no identifiable dollars made but in many regards she is fucking twat.

FrugalToque: +1

[FrugalToque]

Believe it or not, we've discussed the similarities - and crucial differences - between Mustachian philosophy and Randian Libertarianism a lot around here.

On the one hand, yes, both emphasize self-reliance, a can-do attitude and producing a product or service that your fellow people find valuable.  Be a lawyer, computer programmer, carpenter, welder, you name it.

On the other hand, Mustachianism recognizes the value of a society where people aren't constantly trying to screw each other over, and where people can work together, cooperate and achieve something without being labelled "The Socialist" and consequently doomed to failure (a pretty basic theme in Fountainhead: bossing people around is good; accepting advice from your underlings is bad).

Mustachianism enjoys the efficiency of publicly shared commodities, without the Randian worry about "second hand men" and various moochers.  We can have public libraries, public fire departments, public schools and on and on while realizing that some services are more efficiently delivered this way.

It's amusing to me, because, having read Fountainhead, I side with xkcd's Randall Munroe ( https://xkcd.com/1049/ ):  I get about 90% of what Rand says, but she loses me because the last 10% always devolves down to, "therefore, be as much of a greedy jerk to everyone around you as possible."

Toque.

WOOT! WOOT! The great FrugalToque has commented on my thread!

anywho...+1 to your point. BTW, I did read fountainhead and because I found it so disagreeable I never read Atlas Shrugged, and if I ever do it will probably just be the last 60 pages of diatribe or whatever. I was never meaning to suggest that their philosophies of life were similar(in fact I would argue they are very dissimilar), just that coincidentally they could produce the same effect, i.e. a large, productive, percent of the workforce avoids staying in their normal roles, and wanting the forum to discuss how this could effect the economy.

Basically, IMO, as more people stop working and participating in the economy, in a 'normal' way, things begin to change. Mustachians, tend to focus on the consumer and resource side of things while Ayn Rand focuses on the productivity of society, are there things we mustachians are missing by not considering what will happen as these workers leave? I believe the fact that many of these workers are heavily STEM related this could only exacerbate this dilemma.

Fountainhead did seem like quite enough, didn't it?

John Galt's people wanted to continue to do productive labour and saw it pretty much as a necessity for deserving to live.  In fact, they wanted to leave our society because they felt they constituted the real productive labour force, whereas everyone else mooched off their efforts.  What they would likely find, in such an isolated society, is that they had missed certain essential services they weren't aware of (such as Molasses Factory Building Code Inspectors).

Mustachians don't actually want to leave society.  They want to stay in it, but limit their productive labour for that society to only the things they enjoy doing, regardless of remuneration.  Meanwhile, their capital stays invested, continuing to benefit that society as it is lent out to others for their business ventures.  To this extent, they save up their money, cut back their pointless consumption-oriented, environmentally destructive spending and live off of less labour.

These are two sharply different ways of "withdrawing" from society.

Toque.

[Roboturner]

Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead are two of my favorite books - they are great.

First off, forget everything you think you know about the book, its been bastardized by the right/people who read about half of it and said "i get it, whatever"

The book(s) are about the importance of self-sufficiency, and pursuit of knowledge - specifically what you deem important to yourself

"Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. This is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime." - Rand

The "moochers" are really those who put their effort into stopping/hindering your progress by forcing you to do/give/be something. This is evil in my opinion

It is not "FUCK EVERYONE I'M IN IT FOR MYSELF" it's "I am trying to accomplish something, please do not make this more difficult - when I am done let me choose with what I will do"

the only thing i dont like about either book (aside from it being long-winded and heavy handed at times) is her portrayal of sex/love as a power struggle, gives me the willies.

TLDR; yeah i think AS and FH are super mustachian

[StetsTerhune]

It always amazes me to the extent to which we all take whatever pieces they want from things and ignore the rest. I do not self-identify as a "Mustachian", and I sure as hell don't self-identify as an Objectivist. I have read every book Ayn Rand ever wrote and every blog post MMM has written, but without going back through everything with this purpose in mind, I can't reasonably compare the two philosophies because everything is filtered through my mind. I tend to remember the ideas that appeal to me, and to a lesser extent the ideas that repulse me, and forget the things in between.

Filtered through my mind, the thing the two ideas have most in common is extreme self-responsibility -- no excuses, no complainy-pants.. The thing they have most apart is the objective of life -- objectivism considers "excellence" in any form the one and only purpose of life. "Mustachianism" is more about being happy and satisfied.

[SomedayStache]

No.

If they were similar, BDDW would've written a 15 page diatribe in the 3rd person.

HILARIOUS!

[zephyr911]

Heh. This is a fun question. The superficial resemblance is easy enough to spot, and this forum does attract its share of Randians, but I have to say the answer is NO.

To me, the primary distinction between MMM and Objectivist thought is this: MMM acknowledges that humans are social animals, don't exist in a vacuum, rarely achieve great success without some form of help (even STATE help, god forbid!) and tend to live better, happier, more productive, and more fulfilled lives when existing in an interdependent fashion than on our own in a fantastical wilderness. Ayn Rand's narratives of the exceptional individual pitted against the overbearing collective largely ignore that side of our nature.

More generally, Rand's books and philosophy center on resistance to a wildly exaggerated caricature of liberal/statist thought, wherein an oppressive regime denies all independent/individual virtue and crushes or marginalizes nonconforming prodigies to the detriment of all humanity. By contrast, MMM's writings and philosophy are based on science and logic, and continually scrutinized for refinement based on observed realities, which enables him to acknowledge both good and bad aspects of collectivism and individualism while striving to find an ideal balance between the two.

FTR, I've read Fountainhead and liked it well enough for the personal-triumph narrative, but after reading a bit about Atlas Shrugged and seeing part 1 of the movie, I don't know if I'll ever try it. Philosophically and politically I find her work much too hyperbolic to be instructive, and conceptually/personally, the AS storyline doesn't resonate with me.

(In a word: "nuance")

[onlykelsey]

To me, the primary distinction between MMM and Objectivist thought is this: MMM acknowledges that humans are social animals, don't exist in a vacuum, rarely achieve great success without some form of help (even STATE help, god forbid!) and tend to live better, happier, more productive, and more fulfilled lives when existing in an interdependent fashion than on our own in a fantastical wilderness. Ayn Rand's narratives of the exceptional individual pitted against the overbearing collective largely ignore that side of our nature.

Agreed.  MMM seems more Locke than Hobbes, haha.

[TheNick]

Mustachians tend to stay part of taxable society. Most seem to worship government  and praise taxation as virtuous though hypocritically try to minimize tax liability within legal means. Could just be a vocal minority though. Regardless, going Galt is not at all like typical FIRE.

Nailed it.  Its pretty insane how someone can try to tell you Obamacare is good for society, and then turn around and tell you how awesome it is they can retire at 38 and get subsidized healthcare for life now!  Uh...that's good for them...its just placing more of a burden on everyone else that has to subsidize them.  So much hypocrisy on this forum sometimes.

[ender]

The aspect of Atlas Shrugged worshipping your ability to achieve and accomplish things seems pretty at odds with "MMM philosophy" (whatever that is).

Rand values pursuing and attaining individual achievement, MMM believes that many of those specific achievements are largely meaningless.

[FrugalToque]

Mustachians tend to stay part of taxable society. Most seem to worship government  and praise taxation as virtuous though hypocritically try to minimize tax liability within legal means. Could just be a vocal minority though. Regardless, going Galt is not at all like typical FIRE.

Nailed it.  Its pretty insane how someone can try to tell you Obamacare is good for society, and then turn around and tell you how awesome it is they can retire at 38 and get subsidized healthcare for life now!  Uh...that's good for them...its just placing more of a burden on everyone else that has to subsidize them.  So much hypocrisy on this forum sometimes.

An interesting POV.

Do you find it insane that we subsidized an Interstate Highway System that is mostly used for commerce benefiting the profit margins of corporations?  It must be equally insane that we finance a fire department which mostly benefits people who don't take good care of their houses, or a police department that basically keeps track of the criminal element?  Are public schools insane because they benefit poor people's children more than the rich?

It's fair to note: I am Canadian, and so was MMM.  Around here, we subsidize everyone's health care and we told our politicians unambiguously to keep it that way.  Because, although today I pay the "subsidy" in, tomorrow I may get the shit end of the stick and end up needing that "subsidy" back out.  It's the opposite of the poor Republican voter who demands low taxes on the rich because, hey, someday, he might be the rich guy.

We don't call this "hypocrisy", we call it "humanity", and we're all in it together.

Also, although I could be wrong, I don't think MMM gets any subsidies from Obamacare.  He retired by 30, not 38, long before the ACA was passed, and however he manages the income from the blog, I doubt he qualifies for any subsidies.  He certainly hasn't published anything stating he takes advantage of such things.

I also wonder about this "worshipping" of government thing.  Although I suppose it makes you feel good to say things like that, I don't see it from this side.  The government does certain things more efficiently than the private sector (fire protection, health care, etc.) and we defer to it on that, but not on everything.  And we always acknowledge the importance of hodling your officials accountable.

Toque.

[ender]

Mustachians tend to stay part of taxable society. Most seem to worship government  and praise taxation as virtuous though hypocritically try to minimize tax liability within legal means. Could just be a vocal minority though. Regardless, going Galt is not at all like typical FIRE.

Nailed it.  Its pretty insane how someone can try to tell you Obamacare is good for society, and then turn around and tell you how awesome it is they can retire at 38 and get subsidized healthcare for life now!  Uh...that's good for them...its just placing more of a burden on everyone else that has to subsidize them.  So much hypocrisy on this forum sometimes.

An interesting POV.

Do you find it insane that we subsidized an Interstate Highway System that is mostly used for commerce benefiting the profit margins of corporations?  It must be equally insane that we finance a fire department which mostly benefits people who don't take good care of their houses, or a police department that basically keeps track of the criminal element?  Are public schools insane because they benefit poor people's children more than the rich?

It's fair to note: I am Canadian, and so was MMM.  Around here, we subsidize everyone's health care and we told our politicians unambiguously to keep it that way.  Because, although today I pay the "subsidy" in, tomorrow I may get the shit end of the stick and end up needing that "subsidy" back out.  It's the opposite of the poor Republican voter who demands low taxes on the rich because, hey, someday, he might be the rich guy.

We don't call this "hypocrisy", we call it "humanity", and we're all in it together.

Also, although I could be wrong, I don't think MMM gets any subsidies from Obamacare.  He retired by 30, not 38, long before the ACA was passed, and however he manages the income from the blog, I doubt he qualifies for any subsidies.  He certainly hasn't published anything stating he takes advantage of such things.

I also wonder about this "worshipping" of government thing.  Although I suppose it makes you feel good to say things like that, I don't see it from this side.  The government does certain things more efficiently than the private sector (fire protection, health care, etc.) and we defer to it on that, but not on everything.  And we always acknowledge the importance of hodling your officials accountable.

Toque.

This is really hyperbolic and a strawman argument.

There are many threads on this forum about minimizing tax liability and maximizing benefit of government incentives (whether healthcare, 401k/IRAs/RSSPs, tax credits, etc). "Free" healthcare/roads/fire departments/police departments still have to be paid for by something, and in most countries this is taxes - whether corporate, income, sales, property, etc.

Pursuing ER is much more effective when one maximizes benefits from taxes and simultaneously minimizes tax obligations. Pretty much everyone here does everything possible to do this. People reading these boards are also more financially literate than average, meaning that MMM forum posters have a much better "return" on their taxes than the average person making similar incomes, because their lifestyle tax efficiency is considerably higher.

In that sense, it is rather hypocritical. Because while skillfully avoiding paying taxes as best possible often comes with praising programs which require taxes to be paid. By not working and taking advantage of government subsidies (such as Obamacare in USA) you do somewhat take advantage of the system.

You can debate the merits of other government spending, whether taxes are too high anyways, whether it's ethical/not-ethical to do this (it definitely is legal), etc, but the core of is is somewhat hypocritical.

If anything, the better "humanity" approach would involve continuing to work and generating more tax revenue while simultaneously donating money towards charity -- not removing yourself as quickly as possible from the system, providing as minimal input and maximum output as possible.

[TheNick]

An interesting POV.

Do you find it insane that we subsidized an Interstate Highway System that is mostly used for commerce benefiting the profit margins of corporations?  It must be equally insane that we finance a fire department which mostly benefits people who don't take good care of their houses, or a police department that basically keeps track of the criminal element?  Are public schools insane because they benefit poor people's children more than the rich?

Do I find it insane we all pitch in for these things that we all benefit from?  Nope.  I had my turn in k-12 education, I'll pay it forward to the next generation, even if I never need the cops or fire department I'm glad we have them just in case I do need them(well cops...considering how much crime we'd have without them, I definitely benefit even if I don't need a cop right now), and considering I use public roads almost every day and everything sitting in my condo was transported over those public roads I find it ludicrous you claim we subsidize them for the benefit of corporations when its something we all use, and for a lot of us use daily.  Besides...most of these things are funded by property taxes and gas taxes...so we all pay for them unless you live under the bridge, walk everywhere, never purchase anything from a store that was transported via truck, and never have anything mailed/shipped anywhere.

I do however, find it insane you think any of those things are at all related to subsidizing the early retirement of a capable, able bodied individual...especially considering retired individuals are still paying property taxes and gas taxes.

It's fair to note: I am Canadian, and so was MMM.  Around here, we subsidize everyone's health care and we told our politicians unambiguously to keep it that way.  Because, although today I pay the "subsidy" in, tomorrow I may get the shit end of the stick and end up needing that "subsidy" back out.  It's the opposite of the poor Republican voter who demands low taxes on the rich because, hey, someday, he might be the rich guy.

We don't call this "hypocrisy", we call it "humanity", and we're all in it together.

I can appreciate where you are coming from...but let me explain to you how our system works.  You can be a recent college grad, single, making 30k a year and not get any subsidy for your healthcare.  Said individual is probably struggling to get by trying to pay rent and student loans.  You could also be, as many people on this forum are, relatively high earning people with a paid off primary residence and a million + in net worth who retire or plan to retire very early, and thanks to roth laddering will qualify for subsidized healthcare.

How are we all in it together when an indebted 25 year old trying to get his life together is forced so subsidize healthcare for someone with a much, much higher net worth who is able bodied and capable of working yet opted to retire early?  It seems to me like the early retiree in this example is screwing other guy, not being a team player.  That is the hypocrisy.

Also, although I could be wrong, I don't think MMM gets any subsidies from Obamacare.  He retired by 30, not 38, long before the ACA was passed, and however he manages the income from the blog, I doubt he qualifies for any subsidies.  He certainly hasn't published anything stating he takes advantage of such things.

I wasn't calling him out in specific, just throwing a generic example out that fits quite a few on this forum who want to claim "we are all in it together," yet fully support a program, which as I explained previously, is benefiting them at the expense of someone else.  If we were truly all in it together, wouldn't the well to do, as in people with the financial means to retire super early, be the ones subsidizing healthcare for the less well off?  Instead they want to claim we are all in it together while clapping for a law in which their friends, family, and neighbors will have to subsidize their early retirement when the alternative is they could just work a few more years, save a bit more money, and not place an undue burden on society to subsidize their healthcare so they can retire way earlier than average.  That's not all in it together...that is ME ME ME ME.  That sir, is the ultimate hypocrisy.

[TheNick]

In that sense, it is rather hypocritical. Because while skillfully avoiding paying taxes as best possible often comes with praising programs which require taxes to be paid. By not working and taking advantage of government subsidies (such as Obamacare in USA) you do somewhat take advantage of the system.

Exactly.  If someone said they thought Obamacare was great for society even though they never drew a dime in tax payer subsidies and never planned on it, that is someone that truly has an "all in it together" mind set.  I can't call this person a hypocrite...

However, someone who says Obamacare is great for society while planning how to maximize their subsidies that come at someone else's expense so they can retire earlier...that is a different story, and that seems to be quite a few of the "liberals" on this site.  We're all in it together...as long as someone besides them is paying for it!

[GetItRight]

Mustachians tend to stay part of taxable society. Most seem to worship government  and praise taxation as virtuous though hypocritically try to minimize tax liability within legal means. Could just be a vocal minority though. Regardless, going Galt is not at all like typical FIRE.

Nailed it.  Its pretty insane how someone can try to tell you Obamacare is good for society, and then turn around and tell you how awesome it is they can retire at 38 and get subsidized healthcare for life now!  Uh...that's good for them...its just placing more of a burden on everyone else that has to subsidize them.  So much hypocrisy on this forum sometimes.

An interesting POV.

Do you find it insane that we subsidized an Interstate Highway System that is mostly used for commerce benefiting the profit margins of corporations?

The first of several loaded questions. Eliminate the suggestive bias from the questions. A better phrasing would be "Do you find it insane (or unethical) that the government subsidizes the interstate highway system?" I'll play regardless..
Yes, I find it insane that the government subsidizes the interstate highway system that benefits just about everyone in the country. If government didn't have a monopoly on roads, everything about them would be better and more efficiently. Also there would likely not be so much urban sprawl where it is not economically feasible to live more remotely without subsidization. Throw a +1 for private roads with regard to liberal environmental concerns and general mustachian anti-car culture there.

It must be equally insane that we finance a fire department which mostly benefits people who don't take good care of their houses, or a police department that basically keeps track of the criminal element?

Yes I find it insane that government finances fire departments and police. Free market solutions are always more efficient. Government police are generally brutal and disregard both the law and civil rights. This has been demonstrated time and time again throughout history and seemingly a lot recently. Private security and enforcement is accountable, cheaper, and far more effective.

Are public schools insane because they benefit poor people's children more than the rich?

Yes, I find government funded schools insane because they tend to be somewhere between babysitters and indoctrination camps, in practice. Significantly highest cost per student than private schools, with far worse results. Children are our future and the key to a better country and world. We have a multi generational problem which, if it is ever to be solved abolishing government schools, or at the very least federal control and funding of public schools (no more DOE), is a critical step.

It's fair to note: I am Canadian, and so was MMM.  Around here, we subsidize everyone's health care and we told our politicians unambiguously to keep it that way.  Because, although today I pay the "subsidy" in, tomorrow I may get the shit end of the stick and end up needing that "subsidy" back out.  It's the opposite of the poor Republican voter who demands low taxes on the rich because, hey, someday, he might be the rich guy.

We don't call this "hypocrisy", we call it "humanity", and we're all in it together.

Humanity and civilization does not exist with mass theft theft and extortion. Charity is humanitation, taxation is tyranny. The difference is one is voluntary while the other is with the threat of violence.

[bacchi]

Mentioning taxes around libertarians is asking for Godwin's Law to be invoked.

[onlykelsey]

Mentioning taxes around libertarians is asking for Godwin's Law to be invoked.

Gold star.

[FrugalToque]

Yes I find it insane that government finances fire departments and police. Free market solutions are always more efficient.

I don't need to quote the rest of your response, when this bias speaks for all.

This simply isn't true.  One example will suffice:

Health care in Canada, which gives us lower infant mortality, longer life expectancies and a host of other benefits, is a fraction of the cost of health care in the U.S.  The profit taking in private health insurance literally kills people in your country.

The market solution is not better in this instance.  QED: free market solutions are *not* always more efficient.

Your bias in believing they are, however, is what hurts you.

Toque.

[GetItRight]

Yes I find it insane that government finances fire departments and police. Free market solutions are always more efficient.

I don't need to quote the rest of your response, when this bias speaks for all.

This simply isn't true.  One example will suffice:

Health care in Canada, which gives us lower infant mortality, longer life expectancies and a host of other benefits, is a fraction of the cost of health care in the U.S.  The profit taking in private health insurance literally kills people in your country.

The market solution is not better in this instance.  QED: free market solutions are *not* always more efficient.

Your bias in believing they are, however, is what hurts you.

Toque.

In typical liberal fashion you have offered no argument, just appeal to emotion along with changing the subject and ignoring what I said. Try harder? Use logic, reason, and philosophy.

The US hasn't had a free market in healthcare for many decades. What "free market" are you comparing socialist healthcare to? The one where anyone who isn't a round peg for the round hole has to leave the country to be treated? Stephan Molyneux (look him up) left Canada to be treated for cancer when he was denied treatment in Canada. That was a success of the dying remnants of a free market in the US and a massive failure of Canadian healthcare, which surely much money was stolen from Mr. Molyneux by the Canadian government to pay for healthcare.

None of that is all that important though, as socialist healthcare really boils down to a moral issue of slavery and theft. If you believe people have positive rights (the right to healthcare) then you believe people have the right to the fruits of other peoples labor. Either direct slavery (work without wage, freedom to say no, etc.) of doctors and other medical professionals, or stealing money from third parties to pay a doctor and medical professionals to treat an individual. If you believe in freedom and self ownership then positive rights clearly cannot be rights, as it would mean someone else can own people and the fruits of their labor.

[TheNick]

Health care in Canada, which gives us lower infant mortality, longer life expectancies and a host of other benefits, is a fraction of the cost of health care in the U.S.  The profit taking in private health insurance literally kills people in your country.

Do you realize the average profit margin of health insurance companies right now is in the ballpark of 3%?  How does a 3% profit margin justify us spending more than twice what the average developed nation spends on healthcare?  Man did Obama do a good job brainwashing people that the big evil insurance companies were the problem...and then Obamacare mandated everyone to become their customers lol.

This couldn't have anything to do with why America spends so much on medical care, could it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_research

That's right, we spend more on medical research and development than Europe and Canada combined.  Go ahead and ignore that though, and ignore that the United States has been leading the world in medical advancements for decades now, its much easier just to complain about insurance companies rather than actually look at the problem as a whole.

Our R&D spending in the medical field is over 50% of Canada's total spending...must be nice sitting back criticizing our system while you certainly love taking advantage of breakthroughs we fund.  The biggest thing we do wrong is export our advances far too cheaply...they should be more affordable at home and come with a higher price tag to countries like Canada that want the benefits of our research without paying their fair share for it.  Obamacare would have been epic if it placed premium taxes on companies that exported medical technologies for more cheaply than it sells them here at home.

[FrugalToque]

Yes I find it insane that government finances fire departments and police. Free market solutions are always more efficient.

I don't need to quote the rest of your response, when this bias speaks for all.

This simply isn't true.  One example will suffice:

Health care in Canada, which gives us lower infant mortality, longer life expectancies and a host of other benefits, is a fraction of the cost of health care in the U.S.  The profit taking in private health insurance literally kills people in your country.

In typical liberal fashion you have offered no argument, just appeal to emotion along with changing the subject and ignoring what I said. Try harder? Use logic, reason, and philosophy.

No, indeed.  You made a sweeping statement about government vs private sector.  I gave a clearly countering example.

The US hasn't had a free market in healthcare for many decades.

That's pretty convenient for you.  Whenever there's a free market failure, it's automatically "not a free market".  It's impossible to lose that way, isn't it?

So, so clever.

The point is that all free markets end up being not-free markets unless a government intervenes.  The railroad tycoons of centuries past were constantly trying to form cartels.  And if governments didn't enforce all sorts of anti-trust laws today, we can be confident the same would happen today.

None of that is all that important though, as socialist healthcare really boils down to a moral issue of slavery and theft

And .... we're done here.  If you feel letting the poor people who make your life possible die of easily preventable diseases is somehow immoral, if somehow it constitutes theft to make sure the lowest of means among doesn't get the proverbial shaft, there is nothing more to say.

Toque.

[TheNick]

I'm kind of sad you took more time replying to the guy ranting about taxation being theft than replying to my post, even though I took the time to link some referenced statistics for you.  Then again, I'm not really surprised you ignored it because you know its true.

[FIRE me]

I have wondered this for a while and was reminded of it in another thread. I searched but never came up where someone actually suggested that what we are creating is similar to what happens in the book.

If everyone here is retiring early, putting in the minimal years of productivity and work and then living off of passive income is this not too dissimilar to what John Galt is trying to do in the book?

Disclaimer; never actually read the book just hear about it and read some reviews of it, etc. I think I saw the cheap movie a couple of years ago.

Ayn Rand was a disgusting heartless egomaniac.

The John Galt character was always held back by government and the less fortunate.

Mustachianism is about taking control of your own destiny, not about blaming others for your problems or lack of success.

[ender]

I'm kind of sad you took more time replying to the guy ranting about taxation being theft than replying to my post, even though I took the time to link some referenced statistics for you.  Then again, I'm not really surprised you ignored it because you know its true.

It's easier to "win" against extreme positions or straw-men arguments than it is to engage in a meaningful discussion.

[DollarBill]

Even if many dropped out of the race many others would join in!

[tobitonic]

Mustachians tend to stay part of taxable society. Most seem to worship government  and praise taxation as virtuous though hypocritically try to minimize tax liability within legal means. Could just be a vocal minority though. Regardless, going Galt is not at all like typical FIRE.

Nailed it.  Its pretty insane how someone can try to tell you Obamacare is good for society, and then turn around and tell you how awesome it is they can retire at 38 and get subsidized healthcare for life now!  Uh...that's good for them...its just placing more of a burden on everyone else that has to subsidize them.  So much hypocrisy on this forum sometimes.

An interesting POV.

Do you find it insane that we subsidized an Interstate Highway System that is mostly used for commerce benefiting the profit margins of corporations?  It must be equally insane that we finance a fire department which mostly benefits people who don't take good care of their houses, or a police department that basically keeps track of the criminal element?  Are public schools insane because they benefit poor people's children more than the rich?

It's fair to note: I am Canadian, and so was MMM.  Around here, we subsidize everyone's health care and we told our politicians unambiguously to keep it that way.  Because, although today I pay the "subsidy" in, tomorrow I may get the shit end of the stick and end up needing that "subsidy" back out.  It's the opposite of the poor Republican voter who demands low taxes on the rich because, hey, someday, he might be the rich guy.

We don't call this "hypocrisy", we call it "humanity", and we're all in it together.

Also, although I could be wrong, I don't think MMM gets any subsidies from Obamacare.  He retired by 30, not 38, long before the ACA was passed, and however he manages the income from the blog, I doubt he qualifies for any subsidies.  He certainly hasn't published anything stating he takes advantage of such things.

I also wonder about this "worshipping" of government thing.  Although I suppose it makes you feel good to say things like that, I don't see it from this side.  The government does certain things more efficiently than the private sector (fire protection, health care, etc.) and we defer to it on that, but not on everything.  And we always acknowledge the importance of hodling your officials accountable.

Toque.

This is really hyperbolic and a strawman argument.

There are many threads on this forum about minimizing tax liability and maximizing benefit of government incentives (whether healthcare, 401k/IRAs/RSSPs, tax credits, etc). "Free" healthcare/roads/fire departments/police departments still have to be paid for by something, and in most countries this is taxes - whether corporate, income, sales, property, etc.

Pursuing ER is much more effective when one maximizes benefits from taxes and simultaneously minimizes tax obligations. Pretty much everyone here does everything possible to do this. People reading these boards are also more financially literate than average, meaning that MMM forum posters have a much better "return" on their taxes than the average person making similar incomes, because their lifestyle tax efficiency is considerably higher.

In that sense, it is rather hypocritical. Because while skillfully avoiding paying taxes as best possible often comes with praising programs which require taxes to be paid. By not working and taking advantage of government subsidies (such as Obamacare in USA) you do somewhat take advantage of the system.

You can debate the merits of other government spending, whether taxes are too high anyways, whether it's ethical/not-ethical to do this (it definitely is legal), etc, but the core of is is somewhat hypocritical.

If anything, the better "humanity" approach would involve continuing to work and generating more tax revenue while simultaneously donating money towards charity -- not removing yourself as quickly as possible from the system, providing as minimal input and maximum output as possible.

There seems to be a small but merry band of posters who make this argument, which I think is far too rarely made here. You just made it, sol makes it often, TheNick makes it, and I've made it. Whenever it's made, it's rationalized away by most folks here. But it's completely right.

If you want to make society better, you're not going to do it by living off wealth and reaping low income subsidies.

That said, there are a lot of folks here who don't care about making society better, and who outright scorn society, children, the elderly, the poor, and the overall working and middle classes. I don't agree with those folks, but at least they aren't deceiving themselves or others with their intentions.

[TheNick]

There seems to be a small but merry band of posters who make this argument, which I think is far too rarely made here. You just made it, sol makes it often, TheNick makes it, and I've made it. Whenever it's made, it's rationalized away by most folks here. But it's completely right.

If you want to make society better, you're not going to do it by living off wealth and reaping low income subsidies.

That said, there are a lot of folks here who don't care about making society better, and who outright scorn society, children, the elderly, the poor, and the overall working and middle classes. I don't agree with those folks, but at least they aren't deceiving themselves or others with their intentions.

Well said sir.  I can't blame people for taking advantage of it while it lasts...but they really need to get off their high horse about it.  It amazes me how many people around here want to claim to be a team player, and that we're all in this together...while they plan out how to use roth accounts to maximize their subsidies in early retirement.  If they truly were team players they'd be saying "What can I do to make sure I put a little more money into the pot than I take out, and I don't need anyone to subsidize my early retirement, I've earned it on my own."

[FrugalToque]

I'm kind of sad you took more time replying to the guy ranting about taxation being theft than replying to my post, even though I took the time to link some referenced statistics for you.  Then again, I'm not really surprised you ignored it because you know its true.

Right.  I forgot I was required to reply to everyone.

Yes, the US spends a lot on medical research.  That's why you're leading the world in erectile dysfunction drugs.  Yet Salk made zero off his polio vaccine.  It's easy to spend a lot of money on profitable things.

Let's not medical research expenditures, however, when they aren't included in the statistics:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.PCAP
"It covers the provision of health services (preventive and curative), family planning activities, nutrition activities, and emergency aid designated for health"
Nothing in there about including research in the immense cost - and poor outcomes - of US private health care.

Toque.

[FrugalToque]

There seems to be a small but merry band of posters who make this argument, which I think is far too rarely made here. You just made it, sol makes it often, TheNick makes it, and I've made it. Whenever it's made, it's rationalized away by most folks here. But it's completely right.

If you want to make society better, you're not going to do it by living off wealth and reaping low income subsidies.

That said, there are a lot of folks here who don't care about making society better, and who outright scorn society, children, the elderly, the poor, and the overall working and middle classes. I don't agree with those folks, but at least they aren't deceiving themselves or others with their intentions.

Well said sir.  I can't blame people for taking advantage of it while it lasts...but they really need to get off their high horse about it.  It amazes me how many people around here want to claim to be a team player, and that we're all in this together...while they plan out how to use roth accounts to maximize their subsidies in early retirement.  If they truly were team players they'd be saying "What can I do to make sure I put a little more money into the pot than I take out, and I don't need anyone to subsidize my early retirement, I've earned it on my own."

It's well enough to answer this post as answer any of them, so I'll put my reply here.

The biggest problem our society has, the one that will destroy us all, is our consumption of the planet's natural resources.  We are cooking ourselves off the planet, melting the poles, using up the oil, polluting the air and water.  The best way to combat this isn't to "build more wealth" and donate the proceeds to charity. The best thing to do is consume less.  One of the best ways to do this is to teach people to be happy with less material goods.  Early retirement fits in very well with this goal.

Our society/government is designed to tax both income and consumption.  This is good, because people will have the visceral reward of saving money if they consume less.  If they remove themselves from the hamster wheel of "making more money", they will also pay less taxes, which is also fine, as it will limit their consumption.

There is nothing hypocritical about saving the planet for future generations by learning to live on less material consumption.

Toque.

[obstinate]

Atlas Shrugged is dumb. CEOs are generally not what make companies great. If they were, then you'd frequently hear stories about a replacement CEO turning shit around. In fact, new CEOs rarely right a sinking ship, and comp for CEOs and top execs are completely out of proportion with any value they might offer.

What it's about is if industrialists and company owners absented themselves from society, what would happen. Rand seems to think that the world would collapse. In fact, if all CEOs left all corporations, most of these corporations would soldier on without them. The next guy in the chain would take over. Most teams -- you know, the groups that actually get shit done -- would not even be affected. Sure there would be a slight hiccough, but nothing like what Rand believed.

[steveo]

Atlas Shrugged is dumb. CEOs are generally not what make companies great. If they were, then you'd frequently hear stories about a replacement CEO turning shit around. In fact, new CEOs rarely right a sinking ship, and comp for CEOs and top execs are completely out of proportion with any value they might offer.

What it's about is if industrialists and company owners absented themselves from society, what would happen. Rand seems to think that the world would collapse. In fact, if all CEOs left all corporations, most of these corporations would soldier on without them. The next guy in the chain would take over. Most teams -- you know, the groups that actually get shit done -- would not even be affected. Sure there would be a slight hiccough, but nothing like what Rand believed.

I agree. The Fountainhead and I think it was Anthem were much better books. I liked Atlas Shrugged but its proposition is ridiculous. I work in a big company. If anyone leaves that company the company will go right on making money. If the whole executive team left the company would just continue onwards.

[GetItRight]

Yes I find it insane that government finances fire departments and police. Free market solutions are always more efficient.

I don't need to quote the rest of your response, when this bias speaks for all.

This simply isn't true.  One example will suffice:

Health care in Canada, which gives us lower infant mortality, longer life expectancies and a host of other benefits, is a fraction of the cost of health care in the U.S.  The profit taking in private health insurance literally kills people in your country.

In typical liberal fashion you have offered no argument, just appeal to emotion along with changing the subject and ignoring what I said. Try harder? Use logic, reason, and philosophy.

No, indeed.  You made a sweeping statement about government vs private sector.  I gave a clearly countering example.

The US hasn't had a free market in healthcare for many decades.

That's pretty convenient for you.  Whenever there's a free market failure, it's automatically "not a free market".  It's impossible to lose that way, isn't it?

So, so clever.

The point is that all free markets end up being not-free markets unless a government intervenes.  The railroad tycoons of centuries past were constantly trying to form cartels.  And if governments didn't enforce all sorts of anti-trust laws today, we can be confident the same would happen today.

None of that is all that important though, as socialist healthcare really boils down to a moral issue of slavery and theft

And .... we're done here.  If you feel letting the poor people who make your life possible die of easily preventable diseases is somehow immoral, if somehow it constitutes theft to make sure the lowest of means among doesn't get the proverbial shaft, there is nothing more to say.

Toque.

Ah, another liberal prefers the strawman approach. No surprise there.MOD NOTE: Attack an argument, not a person.

[GuitarStv]

None of that is all that important though, as socialist healthcare really boils down to a moral issue of slavery and theft

As a member of a large group of people who have agreed to band together for common good, you enjoy the benefits that the society you live in brings.  Policing ensures that you are able to keep your private property without anyone stronger coming along and stealing it, health and safety regulations ensure that nobody else is poisoning you or killing you through hidden negligence, military groups ensure the general safety of the country from invasion, transportation infrastructure ensures that you can sell the fruits of your labour to a wider audience without an insurmountable difficulty, and public health care ensures that bad luck doesn't cripple you because you're poor.

The beauty of our system is that you are completely free to leave it.  That's also the reason that comparing health care with slavery or theft is silly.  If you don't want to pay towards public health care, you can just leave to another place.  Slaves can't do that.  If you consider paying for public health care theft, you can just leave to another place . . . and you'll never have to worry about that money being taken from you again.

If you don't want to freely leave because of the incredible benefits that you enjoy by being a part of society, then stay.  Don't pretend that anyone is forcing you to stay though.  Own up to your own decision, and accept that just as others pay for things that you use, you must occasionally pay for things that others use.