Are most Mustachians Libertarian?

[WilliamWallace]

Not trying to get into a political debate, but the philosophy seems aligned with self-reliance and thereby smaller gov't.

Just curious if that's discussed and any thoughts on the matter.

[tonysemail]

It seems to be a minority.  Taken from an old poll in 2013.
Feel free to make a new poll :)
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/(poll)-mustachian-political-voting/?viewresults

And a more recent thread-
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/who-else-here-is-a-libertarian/

[Kriegsspiel]

I think the last census showed most are lefties.

As for your second question; all the goddamn time.

[Jack]

Most on this forum are far left from what i have read. MMM himself is basically a socialist.

I think the last census showed most are lefties.

You realize you've failed to answer the OP's question, right? "left" and "libertarian" are orthogonal concepts, and it's entirely possible to be both at the same time.

In other words, libertarianism is neither "right" nor "left" -- on that axis, it's centrist (if anything). It's only extremist on the libertarian - authoritarian scale.

[bacchi]

Most on this forum are far left from what i have read. MMM himself is basically a socialist.

I think the last census showed most are lefties.

You realize you've failed to answer the OP's question, right? "left" and "libertarian" are orthogonal concepts, and it's entirely possible to be both at the same time.

In other words, libertarianism is neither "right" nor "left" -- on that axis, it's centrist (if anything). It's only extremist on the libertarian - authoritarian scale.

According to whose graph?

[mozar]

I'm not interested enough to look up the philosophy,  but I've always thought of libertarians as a sub group of conservatives. I don't know what mmm thinks about the government but bikes are a lefty cause. And he is Canadian born, which is not a country with pro-libertarian views. So I think lefty people are who he mostly appeals to. Anyways, you can also be self reliant and a lefty.

[dougules]

I think there's a pretty big contingent of libertarians, but I think more of the folks on here are dirty liberal pink-o commies.  It's a pretty mixed bag really. 

[meghan88]

I'm not interested enough to look up the philosophy,  but I've always thought of libertarians as a sub group of conservatives. I don't know what mmm thinks about the government but bikes are a lefty cause. And he is Canadian born, which is not a country with pro-libertarian views. So I think lefty people are who he mostly appeals to. Anyways, you can also be self reliant and a lefty.

Really?  How does a personal choice to get exercise and save lots of money make someone a lefty?  If bikes are a lefty cause, then what's a righty cause?  Large vehicles? Obesity? Payday loans?

[ooeei]

Most on this forum are far left from what i have read. MMM himself is basically a socialist.

I think the last census showed most are lefties.

You realize you've failed to answer the OP's question, right? "left" and "libertarian" are orthogonal concepts, and it's entirely possible to be both at the same time.

In other words, libertarianism is neither "right" nor "left" -- on that axis, it's centrist (if anything). It's only extremist on the libertarian - authoritarian scale.

According to whose graph?

https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2



Since political parties tend to use these words incorrectly at times, it gets tricky because it depends whose definition you use.  The explanation makes sense though:

If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.

That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitrary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities existed in Spain during the civil war period

[Jack]

I think there's a pretty big contingent of libertarians, but I think more of the folks on here are dirty liberal pink-o commies.  It's a pretty mixed bag really.

I suppose if you really need a pejorative term, the one that comes closest to describing those of us who are both "left" and libertarian is "hippies."

[MoonLiteNite]

Most on this forum are far left from what i have read. MMM himself is basically a socialist.

Agreed....

I am Libertarian/minarchist though :)


edit: and a note on the chart above, remember "left vs right" on a true political sense is more about how free eco policies are, it isn't being used as in right vs left that is used in the states.
If you draw a chart like that, both people like trump and hillary would be on the rightish side, and both would be high up, same for obama, bush, and most other recent leaders of the states.
Someone like Jill Stein is far left and slightly down, while people like Gary Johnson are middle right and far down (remember he supports a degree of welfare, and SS)

[intirb]

Libertarian is a bit of a regional word, and it means different things depending on what country you are living in.

In the US, libertarianism is largely considered to be a segment of the right, albeit with lefty social values.  It is more or less synonymous with anarcho-capitalism, which is itself a controversial term, or at least libertarian is considered a step on the spectrum towards ancap.

In Europe (and possibly elsewhere), libertarian usually means "left libertarian" and is more or less synonymous with the more traditional forms of anarchism of the "property is theft" variety.

I'm not interested in debating the merits of these definitions - semantics is hopelessly dull - but I just want to point out that different folks in this forum may interpret OP's question differently.

FWIW, I'm from the US but consider myself a left libertarian.  I see mustachianism as a practical and attainable means of escaping wage slavery within a capitalist system (which is not likely to be overthrown anytime soon), but unlike US libertarians/ancaps, I pretty much see capitalism as being just as oppressive as statism. 

[Jack]

If you draw a chart like that, both people like trump and hillary would be on the rightish side, and both would be high up, same for obama, bush, and most other recent leaders of the states.
Someone like Jill Stein is far left and slightly down, while people like Gary Johnson are middle right and far down (remember he supports a degree of welfare, and SS)

In the US, libertarianism is largely considered to be a segment of the right, albeit with lefty social values.

Speaking one-dimensionally, that is exactly equivalent to characterizing it as "a segment of the left, albeit with righty economic values," which is why myopically trying to collapse economic policy and social policy down to one axis is stupid.

Unfortunately, the "hopelessly dull" semantics matter, in the sense that "largely considering" libertarian on the one-dimensional axis allows both the Democrats and Republicans to demonize it as extremist. That serves their purposes, since it limits the idea's ability to counter their (shared!) authoritarian agendas.

[intirb]

In the US, libertarianism is largely considered to be a segment of the right, albeit with lefty social values.

Speaking one-dimensionally, that is exactly equivalent to characterizing it as "a segment of the left, albeit with righty economic values," which is why myopically trying to collapse economic policy and social policy down to one axis is stupid.

Unfortunately, the "hopelessly dull" semantics matter, in the sense that "largely considering" libertarian on the one-dimensional axis allows both the Democrats and Republicans to demonize it as extremist. That serves their purposes, since it limits the idea's ability to counter their (shared!) authoritarian agendas.

I feel like you've misunderstood much of what I wrote, so I just have some clarification points:

1.  I used "right" in the same way that your graphic uses "right", so in the US, Libertarians are appropriately considered a segment of the right - at least according to your own graphic.
2.  I'm not responsible for, nor defending, the two party system in the US and the resultant collapsing of a highly-dimensional political space onto a binary choice.
3.  When I say I'm not interesting in arguing about semantics, I just mean I'm not interested in arguing about which use of the word libertarian is the "correct" one.
4.  I'm just describing how terms are generally used/seen - not defending that position.

[obstinate]

I sure am not. Me money mustache himself definitely isn't.

[Gin1984]

I think there's a pretty big contingent of libertarians, but I think more of the folks on here are dirty liberal pink-o commies.  It's a pretty mixed bag really.

I suppose if you really need a pejorative term, the one that comes closest to describing those of us who are both "left" and libertarian is "hippies."

Not really, given the large sample set of old hippies from SF that I know.  None of them are libertarian. 

[Jack]

4.  I'm just describing how terms are generally used/seen - not defending that position.

Sorry about that. I recognized that's what you were doing and intended to merely use your post as a jumping-off point, but I can see how my tone left the wrong impression.

[LeRainDrop]

Here is the link to the current MMM presidential voting poll as between five choices -- Clinton, Trump, Johnson, Stein, and plan to abstain.  The current stats show:

• 51.3% for Clinton
• 33.5% for Johnson
• 8.9% for Trump
• 4% for Stein
• 2.2% plan to abstain

[Roboturner]

I think they probably should be, but it seems as though a lot aren't, I seem to remember a pretty strong contingent of MMM-ers that went from Bernie (Authoritarian-left) to Hillz (Authoritarian-right) 

I especially don't get it because a lot of the MMM posts are "dont be an idiot and think for yourself" that seems at odds with big-government to me

This is where I sit

[Jack]

I think they probably should be, but it seems as though a lot aren't, I seem to remember a pretty strong contingent of MMM-ers that went from Bernie (Authoritarian-left) to Hillz (Authoritarian-right) 

Bernie is not "authoritarian-left" (at least not in comparison to the other candidates).

[Roboturner]

This is actually a pretty interesting read

https://jamessmith.liberty.me/ron-paul-is-right-bernie-sanders-is-an-authoritarian/

[waltworks]

I consider myself libertarian, in that I prefer the minimum possible amount of central planning/control over both the economy and private life of me and everyone else.

The problem is that I think the minimum amount of governement is actually a LOT, especially in cases (health care, environmental protection, child/dependent welfare, etc) where market forces don't work particularly well to produce optimum outcomes. I also recognize that society itself is inherently a collective enterprise and we're all extremely inter/co-dependent at this point.

So I mostly freak out my libertarian friends when I say that I want fossil fuels taxed to death because the consequences have to be priced in and the market isn't doing it. Then they just call me a liberal/socialist. I prefer "sophisticated libertarian", but c'est la vie. The term has unfortunately come to mean near-religious faith that a free market solves every problem. We have plenty of evidence at this point that that's not true.

-W

[woopwoop]

Really?  How does a personal choice to get exercise and save lots of money make someone a lefty?  If bikes are a lefty cause, then what's a righty cause?  Large vehicles? Obesity? Payday loans?

I was curious so I went digging, and the answers are: yes, yes, couldn't find any studies.

"The CNW survey, which measured political affiliation not just by make but also by model, found that a Jeep Grand Cherokee S.U.V. was more than half again as likely to be bought by a Republican than by a Democrat, at 46 percent to 28. Among Hummer buyers, the Republican-to-Democrat ratio was a whopping 52 to 23.
According to CNW's figures, staunch Democrats drive S.U.V.'s too, but they tend to prefer smaller, foreign-made ones. Republicans generally like them bigger and American-made, or at least bearing the name of an American company, even if they were built elsewhere."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/01/automobiles/your-car-politics-on-wheels.html?_r=0

"we found that higher county-level obesity prevalence rates were associated with higher levels of support for the 2012 Republican Party presidential candidate."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743513003046

[wenchsenior]

Really?  How does a personal choice to get exercise and save lots of money make someone a lefty?  If bikes are a lefty cause, then what's a righty cause?  Large vehicles? Obesity? Payday loans?

I was curious so I went digging, and the answers are: yes, yes, couldn't find any studies.

"The CNW survey, which measured political affiliation not just by make but also by model, found that a Jeep Grand Cherokee S.U.V. was more than half again as likely to be bought by a Republican than by a Democrat, at 46 percent to 28. Among Hummer buyers, the Republican-to-Democrat ratio was a whopping 52 to 23.
According to CNW's figures, staunch Democrats drive S.U.V.'s too, but they tend to prefer smaller, foreign-made ones. Republicans generally like them bigger and American-made, or at least bearing the name of an American company, even if they were built elsewhere."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/01/automobiles/your-car-politics-on-wheels.html?_r=0

"we found that higher county-level obesity prevalence rates were associated with higher levels of support for the 2012 Republican Party presidential candidate."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743513003046

The Big Sort by Bill Bishop has some fascinating cultural associations with voting patterns. For example, (the typical) conservative is far more likely to treat their lawn with chemicals than (a typical) liberal; the two groups watch different tv shows; liberals do yoga/conservatives do not; the two groups drive different kinds of cars; they put emphases in different areas re: child rearing (conservatives more focused on self-discipline and manners,  liberals more on self-actualization of the kid),and on and on...very interesting stuff.

[MoonLiteNite]

I think they probably should be, but it seems as though a lot aren't, I seem to remember a pretty strong contingent of MMM-ers that went from Bernie (Authoritarian-left) to Hillz (Authoritarian-right) 

Bernie is not "authoritarian-left" (at least not in comparison to the other candidates).

I think an issue alot of libertarians have with bernie is he may not be all that authoritarian, what is is for is higher taxes, and more control for the state on the money side of things. Which is HUGE witih alot of people. Alot more than say an issue like legal pot, or gay marriage, or forcing kids to get their shots. They all have the same grounds as being authoritarian, but most people end up weighing the tax thing against bernie very high.

I personally would fully support him, his ideas and believes are GREAT. But sadly, he wants to fund them through theft and force.

[Davids]

I am one of the rare Republican Mustachian's. Yes I get how Obamacare benefits those in FIRE but overall I still hate it as it hurts a lot more people in order to help a few.

[mohawkbrah]

From looking at the charts posted im an extreme libertarian mostly because i dislike government control and want to do what i want. For example. I want to be able to build a house on the land i own without the government giving me "permission" for it.

im also a frequent visitor of the "UK hippy" forum and constantly looking at ways of alternative living to get away from being controlled by others  like off grid living, but then realising that i live in the UK ad there's no escaping the toffee nose jobworths that live to make your life impossible(recently been looking at living at sea)

[Classical_Liberal]

From looking at the charts posted im an extreme libertarian mostly because i dislike government control and want to do what i want. For example. I want to be able to build a house on the land i own without the government giving me "permission" for it.

im also a frequent visitor of the "UK hippy" forum and constantly looking at ways of alternative living to get away from being controlled by others  like off grid living, but then realising that i live in the UK ad there's no escaping the toffee nose jobworths that live to make your life impossible(recently been looking at living at sea)

I've often thought "socialist hippies" and "libertarian anarchists" have much more in common with each other than to either of the modern US political parties.  If there is ever a collapse of one (like maybe with the total fracturing of the repubs lately) which is replaced or a third party that starts gaining some traction by grabbing a few seats in the house or senate to impact with swing votes, it will likely be a coalition of these two ideologies.

Personally, I like as minimal gov't intervention as possible.  However, if I had to choose between forfeiting some economic rights (ie higher taxes for potential individual lose, but net group gain) or my social freedoms (do whatever the hell I want as long as i'm not hurting others), I'd choose the former. My reasoning is two fold.  First, the US is already a very free market compared to the rest of the developed world. We already have a big economic advantage and there is probably some "give" in which we can keep that advantage. Second, our current system of economic regulation is flawed (as most economic regulation is) and has allowed substantial cronyism to corrupt the market. I realize more regulation would likely worsen that problem, but more of the "right" regulation, under the "right" leadership could transfer the cronyism inefficiencies into mere bureaucratic inefficiencies.  This could, in theory, create no net loss to overall economy, while positively impacting the lower 90 percent of the economic scale and the upper 10 percent that isn't "cheating" with cronyism.   The "losers" would only be those currently gaming the system.

[MoonLiteNite]

I am one of the rare Republican Mustachian's. Yes I get how Obamacare benefits those in FIRE but overall I still hate it as it hurts a lot more people in order to help a few.

Even if it hurt less people to help more, it is still using force and harming someone against their will :(
To me it is  so strange how  anyone can support something when you take money from someone else with force, in the time of charity.

Awesome video i use to share others.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ne16Le-hq4

[Spork]

From looking at the charts posted im an extreme libertarian mostly because i dislike government control and want to do what i want. For example. I want to be able to build a house on the land i own without the government giving me "permission" for it.

I don't pretend to know how things work in the UK... but in the US this is almost entirely possible.  We had one and only one permit for our house and that was for the septic system.  Nothing else required "permission." 

[JLee]

I am one of the rare Republican Mustachian's. Yes I get how Obamacare benefits those in FIRE but overall I still hate it as it hurts a lot more people in order to help a few.

Even if it hurt less people to help more, it is still using force and harming someone against their will :(
To me it is  so strange how  anyone can support something when you take money from someone else with force, in the time of charity.

Awesome video i use to share others.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ne16Le-hq4

How do you 'taxation is theft by force' people think a country would survive without taxation? By the immense generosity of the wealthy?

[waltworks]

Taxation isn't theft, because being a US citizen is (at least as an adult, when you actually pay taxes) *voluntary*.

It's like being in a club and being required to kick in money to rent space for a party - while you might not want to go to the party, or kick in the money - your only real option is to quit the club or else convince everyone else the party is a dumb idea. The club isn't stealing anything from you by requiring you to kick in for club activities, just like the United States (or wherever you reside) isn't stealing your taxes from you. You always have the option to renounce your citizenship and move elsewhere.

You might not like your non-US options, but that doesn't mean being a citizen, and paying your taxes as part of the deal, is theft.

That kind of language and simplistic thinking is something I really dislike about other libertarians.

-W

[sol]

I think the libertarian party has tried to adopt some ideas that otherwise have wide support among regular democrats and republicans, like curtailing the war on drugs, but hasn't done a very good job of articulating why those good ideas require a third party to implement.  Like any old regular democrat can agree that the war on drugs was a failed experiment, and that mandatory minimum sentences were racially motivated and discriminatory.

And the rest of the libertarian party platform is wildly UNpopular, so even those people who are seduced by ideas like decriminalizing marijuana rapidly figure out that they don't want to actually vote for people who want to abolish the EPA or who think it's perfectly okay for a business to refuse service to people based on their race or sexuality.  Most Americans WANT their government to protect the environment and clamp down on open bigotry.

At some point in the next few elections, we'll start seeing candidates who are freed up from the old restrictions of dem/rep party platforms, and can actually advocate for the mixture of traditionally liberal and conservative ideas that most people support.  A wide majority of Americans want infrastructure spending and a strong military and a balanced budget, and higher taxes on the super wealthy to pay for it all.  I think we're already seeing this sort of party dissolution in people like Trump, who is on both sides of the abortion debate and agrees with Bernie Sanders (erroneously IMO) on trade deals and who has openly supported gay marriage, universal health care, gun control, and raising taxes, and yet still attracts droves of conservative voters.  And droves of evangelical voters despite being on his third marriage.  And droves of wealthy business voters despite having declared multiple bankruptcies.  The old alignments just don't seem to matter so much this time around.

Clinton's not much better, in that respect.  She championed universal health care in the 90s and then totally sold out to the insurance industry when she voted for Obamacare.  She wants to be the progressive candidate of the future, but she's basically Dick Cheney 2.0 when it comes to foreign policy. 

So with so many crossover voters motivated by single issues that seem to strip them away from their old party alignments, I think there's room for either (or even both) parties to float future candidates that completely outrage their traditional constituencies.  Marco Rubio could run in 2016 on a the idea of granting amnesty to every single illegal immigrant as part of broad immigration reform, for example.  Julian Castro could run on school voucher reform to transfer public funding to christian schools, with strong outreach to religious communities.

It could be an interesting couple of decades in American politics.  I'm really looking forward to the post-election analysis of how and why the GOP struggled so much this time around, and their plan for moving forward.  Historically, dramatic party defeats have often been followed by equally dramatic comebacks in the very next presidential election, so maybe they'll figure something out.

[MoonLiteNite]

How do you 'taxation is theft by force' people think a country would survive without taxation? By the immense generosity of the wealthy?

The way it did for the first 200 years of the country...
Federal taxes in USA is kinda new, it has only been around for the last 80 years or so.
The only federal tax before that was a tax on smokes and alcohol, but even those were turned on and off in times of war and peace.

Most things that people believe "we need government for" are all already being done a private level, it just depends if you as a consumer want to be taxed, AND pay for a better service.
Like i pay a private EMS, and fire company. I am my own protection, a cop will NEVER get to your house while you are being robbed. My road is paid for by the people who live on the road, we refuse to let the city take ownership of it, SS and medical care would also be handled better BY the person, which i do, i just ALSO have to pay a tax because i do not protect myself enough?
Image what you could do, if you had all your SS money, and medicare money that you have had taken from you over the years. I personally have paid in over 100,000$. If i had that money, all my federal income tax money, handed back to me, i could retire right now, at the age of 30. And go out and volunteer and do what i love doing. But instead, i have to work for another 7-15 years and put off helping others as much as i would like.

And one final note, if you are online, you are wealthy, if you drive in a magical box (hahaha i cant believe i am saying this on MMM forum) that can drive you 300 miles at 70mph, you are wealthy, you are in the top 1% of people of the world.

edit:
And MOST libertarians are not 100% for removing government and all that, at least those that do support it understand it won't happen over night. That is why Gary Johnson is running, he is the least libertarian libertarian that there is. The biggest, tax change he could do would be to push for fairtax, which is still a tax, just another forum, that actually would be HUGE and great frugal people, because you are taxed when you spend, not when you earn.

[intirb]

Clinton's not much better, in that respect.  She championed universal health care in the 90s and then totally sold out to the insurance industry when she voted for Obamacare. 

Clinton voted for Obamacare?  I don't think cabinet members get to vote on pieces of legislation..

[meghan88]

As an outside observer on the U.S. election, the one question that continues to boggle my mind this time around is that out of a country of 342,700+ people, it boils down to one of those two to lead it?  I agree with Sol that U.S. politics are in for an interesting few decades.

[MoonLiteNite]

As an outside observer on the U.S. election, the one question that continues to boggle my mind this time around is that out of a country of 342,700+ people, it boils down to one of those two to lead it?  I agree with Sol that U.S. politics are in for an interesting few decades.

That is one of the huge problems, it isn't just those 2, there are 6 people running, 3 of which could win every state (gary johnson), and a 4th (jill stien) who could more than 1/2 the states.

But the way media has worked out people haven't really seen a 3rd party since 1992 when the media, GOP and DEM made it HARDER for a 3rd party to be put into "the debates". The good thing now is the internet is catching up, and as younger people who use the internet can see these other options, the other options are growing, and fast. Hopefully by next year Libertarian party will be able to hit the 30% and it will be a 3 way race!

[newelljack]

Taxation isn't theft, because being a US citizen is (at least as an adult, when you actually pay taxes) *voluntary*.

It's like being in a club and being required to kick in money to rent space for a party - while you might not want to go to the party, or kick in the money - your only real option is to quit the club or else convince everyone else the party is a dumb idea. The club isn't stealing anything from you by requiring you to kick in for club activities, just like the United States (or wherever you reside) isn't stealing your taxes from you. You always have the option to renounce your citizenship and move elsewhere.

You might not like your non-US options, but that doesn't mean being a citizen, and paying your taxes as part of the deal, is theft.

That kind of language and simplistic thinking is something I really dislike about other libertarians.

-W

In that analogy, I see the ACA as the club choosing to make the party an open bar instead of BYOB. But it's like an open bar at a wedding and they only have certain drinks and the designated driver doesn't get a free soda.

[JLee]

How do you 'taxation is theft by force' people think a country would survive without taxation? By the immense generosity of the wealthy?

The way it did for the first 200 years of the country...
Federal taxes in USA is kinda new, it has only been around for the last 80 years or so.
The only federal tax before that was a tax on smokes and alcohol, but even those were turned on and off in times of war and peace.

Most things that people believe "we need government for" are all already being done a private level, it just depends if you as a consumer want to be taxed, AND pay for a better service.
Like i pay a private EMS, and fire company. I am my own protection, a cop will NEVER get to your house while you are being robbed. My road is paid for by the people who live on the road, we refuse to let the city take ownership of it, SS and medical care would also be handled better BY the person, which i do, i just ALSO have to pay a tax because i do not protect myself enough?
Image what you could do, if you had all your SS money, and medicare money that you have had taken from you over the years. I personally have paid in over 100,000$. If i had that money, all my federal income tax money, handed back to me, i could retire right now, at the age of 30. And go out and volunteer and do what i love doing. But instead, i have to work for another 7-15 years and put off helping others as much as i would like.

And one final note, if you are online, you are wealthy, if you drive in a magical box (hahaha i cant believe i am saying this on MMM forum) that can drive you 300 miles at 70mph, you are wealthy, you are in the top 1% of people of the world.

edit:
And MOST libertarians are not 100% for removing government and all that, at least those that do support it understand it won't happen over night. That is why Gary Johnson is running, he is the least libertarian libertarian that there is. The biggest, tax change he could do would be to push for fairtax, which is still a tax, just another forum, that actually would be HUGE and great frugal people, because you are taxed when you spend, not when you earn.

If by 80 years ago you mean 1913, then you're correct. I don't want to live in 200-year-ago America. Do you?

An income of $32,400 puts you in the global 1%. That's not a lot, but it's certainly possible to have internet access and a car at that income level.

If you have paid over $100k in FICA taxes, you've earned roughly $1.3 million. Presuming that's over the last 12 years, you're averaging $108k/year from the age of 18.  If you need another 15 years to retire, you may want to post a case study and figure out where all your money is going.

[waltworks]

In that analogy, I see the ACA as the club choosing to make the party an open bar instead of BYOB. But it's like an open bar at a wedding and they only have certain drinks and the designated driver doesn't get a free soda.

Sure, but that doesn't matter. You chose to join the club (or in the case of the USA, chose to stay in it). So nothing is being stolen from you. You can advocate for lower taxes, but calling taxation theft undercuts your other legitimate arguments.

-W

[newelljack]

In that analogy, I see the ACA as the club choosing to make the party an open bar instead of BYOB. But it's like an open bar at a wedding and they only have certain drinks and the designated driver doesn't get a free soda.

Sure, but that doesn't matter. You chose to join the club (or in the case of the USA, chose to stay in it). So nothing is being stolen from you. You can advocate for lower taxes, but calling taxation theft undercuts your other legitimate arguments.

-W

Just having some fun with it. Taxes pay my salary. I'd be more interested in making sure the right people were getting the money with as little waste and fraud as possible. I think that is what turns so many people off on taxes, watching their money go to waste. I do think corruption is much lower in the US than some countries, but does there HAVE to be any?

[MoonLiteNite]

In that analogy, I see the ACA as the club choosing to make the party an open bar instead of BYOB. But it's like an open bar at a wedding and they only have certain drinks and the designated driver doesn't get a free soda.

Sure, but that doesn't matter. You chose to join the club (or in the case of the USA, chose to stay in it). So nothing is being stolen from you. You can advocate for lower taxes, but calling taxation theft undercuts your other legitimate arguments.

-W

Ummm i did not even choose to join the club, or BYOB, andi am being forced to pitch in for the keg....
And back to english :D
I do not have health care, and i am being forced to pay in as a "Fee"to help everyone else. And if i do not pay that fee, someone with a gun will come to my house and use force and his gun to lock me in a cage. And if i try and defend myself, i will be murdered.

[MoonLiteNite]

If you need another 15 years to retire, you may want to post a case study and figure out where all your money is going.

It doesn't matter where it is going, as long as i am not harming anyone with it.
That is my own choice, and should be yours and everyone else's. People on here are choosing to try and become FI, or kept out of debt or RE or whatever. And that is great.

Where i do know over 100,000$ has gone, is to someone else who took it from me with force.

[JLee]

In that analogy, I see the ACA as the club choosing to make the party an open bar instead of BYOB. But it's like an open bar at a wedding and they only have certain drinks and the designated driver doesn't get a free soda.

Sure, but that doesn't matter. You chose to join the club (or in the case of the USA, chose to stay in it). So nothing is being stolen from you. You can advocate for lower taxes, but calling taxation theft undercuts your other legitimate arguments.

-W

Ummm i did not even choose to join the club, or BYOB, andi am being forced to pitch in for the keg....
And back to english :D
I do not have health care, and i am being forced to pay in as a "Fee"to help everyone else. And if i do not pay that fee, someone with a gun will come to my house and use force and his gun to lock me in a cage. And if i try and defend myself, i will be murdered.

Perhaps you should move to Qatar.

[MoonLiteNite]

Perhaps you should move to Qatar.

Ummm qatar uses alot of violence and force on their *meaning ownership* people, which is what libertarians are strongly against... so that is a bad idea.


edit:
And say qatar was a free country where people are not forced to pay to help each other.  Or stripped of their rights based on gender or what they are attracted to. That doesn't mean other countries can't copy their freedom way of living, and everyone who lives in a country where they are being harmed and stolen from should HAVE to leave. Being free should be the normal, not having to escape.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fasTSY-dB-s

[Telecaster]

I think there's a pretty big contingent of libertarians, but I think more of the folks on here are dirty liberal pink-o commies.  It's a pretty mixed bag really.

I suppose if you really need a pejorative term, the one that comes closest to describing those of us who are both "left" and libertarian is "hippies."

I like to use the term "dirty hippies."

[Goose A. Doose]

Im as libertarian as it gets.  Far right constitutionalist without thw wars and religion. Huge garden, chickens, rabbits, hunts, fishes, diesel truck, hot rods, bicycles, self reliant, land in the country etc.  Let me have flat tax and gun silencers and ill let you have an abortion, dont care just dont want me or my kids to pay for it..  Close the post office, abolish the irs, defund the epa  If youve ever taken a dime of gov assistance youre out of my circle. 

This board is made up of half capitalists that provide most of the usefull business content and half lefties democrat progressive scum that think the "badass" section is for switching from paper bags to a reusable bag with a tree printed on it.  MOD NOTE: If you think 1/2 the forum members are "scum" you may wany to find another community to meet your needs/be an echo chamber for your views.

[JLee]

Im as libertarian as it gets.  Far right constitutionalist without thw wars and religion. Huge garden, chickens, rabbits, hunts, fishes, diesel truck, hot rods, bicycles, self reliant, land in the country etc.  Let me have flat tax and gun silencers and ill let you have an abortion, dont care just dont want me or my kids to pay for it..  Close the post office, abolish the irs, defund the epa  If youve ever taken a dime of gov assistance youre out of my circle. 

This board is made up of half capitalists that provide most of the usefull business content and half lefties democrat progressive scum that think the "badass" section is for switching from paper bags to a reusable bag with a tree printed on it.

Forum rule #1.

I'm glad there aren't enough people to push a complete libertarian agenda.  A flat tax is incredibly regressive.  I've not taken government assistance other than grants for college - but I don't want to be in your egotistical fuck-everyone-else circle anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter.

[MoonLiteNite]

I do not believe flat tax is something libertarians want.

A true one would want no taxes, but a minarchist type would want something more along the lines of what we already have, without all the rebates and loopholes, or they would want the fairtax.

[LeRainDrop]

This board is made up of half capitalists that provide most of the usefull business content and half lefties democrat progressive scum that think the "badass" section is for switching from paper bags to a reusable bag with a tree printed on it.

Uh, welcome to our community.