I hate seeing someone arguing for reforms who so totally resists ways individuals can accomplish the same goals, until those reforms occur (if they do).
Astute observation, thanks.
The author of the article is in a variation of the group trap from Harry Browne's How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World - trying to accomplish something indirectly (thought trying to change society, other people's minds, etc.) instead of what he can change directly.
It's not always appropriate to make individual effort a condition for reform. Should the EPA not be allowed jurisdiction over drilling companies because so many individuals don't sort their recyclables properly?
The London fog caused a number of deaths. Individuals could have moved farther out of the city so at least they weren't sleeping in it. They could have exercised to improve their overall cardiovascular health so they were less impacted by the pollution. People could have closed their windows and wiped down all the surfaces in their houses. Why puritanically judge people who don't take these precautions when the obvious problem is the poisonous frikkin' fog over everything?
If this guy is saying the fact that someone can't afford yoga classes is cause for reform, that's a bad argument for reform. But I don't think that's what he's saying. I think he's saying that the fact that people could save $2400/year by not getting cable is not an argument _against_ reform. I think it's a bad article because that argument isn't in MMM's blog.
The poisonous frikin' fog was caused by everyone in London burning coal to heat, cook with, and run factories. Legislation forced people to stop burning so much coal-- wonderful!-- but while waiting for, and campaigning for said legislation, I'm sure there were plenty of ordinary Londoners who cut back on the consumption of dirty coal in their everyday lives.
That's not an argument against reform, either. There's no dichotomy, individual action vs. reform. Not only are they not in opposition, but you have to have both-- just look at how much good Al Gore has done to get down CO2 emissions by jetting around the globe. If he (and other powerful, concerned-sounding people) sold his mansion, took the train, and drove a Prius, I suspect we would have had a treaty. As they said in the 70s, "the personal is political."
As I said to my teen daughter, it's better for you to watch Scandal and Grey's Anatomy on Friday (for free on the internet) than Thursday (which would require cable where we live) anyhow since it's not a school night.
Ah, but it's not free on the Internet. If you were using the interwebs only for hypertext, as we did once upon a time, your connection would cost a tiny fraction of what it does if you need enough bandwidth for video use. Cheaper than cable? It sure is! But not free. Heck, depending on where you live, you might actually be able to get free dialup, if all you wanted was hypertext.
Anyway, I agree with everyone who says the MMM family is wasteful-- he'd agree with you! MMM is quite unapologetic in his posts that he lives a life of (relative) luxury. Of course, anyone but a subsistence farmer can have that accusation leveled at them, so I'm not sure what the point is. He's living well below his means, anyway, and that's the point.