Mustachianism as Libertarian or Progressive OR a Little of both??

[lithy]

I vote for "Mustachianism isn't a political philosophy". Libertarians often say they are in favour of, e.g., equal treatment for minorities, but they don't necessarily want it to be enforced by the government. In a similar sort of way, Mustachians are in favour of taking personal responsibility but don't necessarily want "everyone has to fend for themselves" to be government policy.

You can go through the blog posts and find ideas which align with either philosophy, but you can't make a jump from "MMM thinks X is a good idea" to "MMM thinks the government should do X".

This really is the best post in this thread.  Kudos to you.

[Daley]

I won't say that I was shocked by my results, but that was fun.

I wasn't surprised to find myself in the company of:

“You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” Mahatma Gandhi

“Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” Nelson Mandela

“A good friend who points out mistakes and imperfections and rebukes (with curses and verbal face punches) evil is to be respected as if he reveals the secret of some hidden treasure.” the Dalai Lama

It doesn't surprise me, and I fall into the same quadrant. I also suspect that a great deal of people here are more likely to wind up in a similar camp, if they can separate their actual values from the political dogma they've willingly adopted and quote as being a value system they believe in.

I'm amused by the assumption that libertarians believe in taking personal responsibility for their own lives and choices, but liberals do not. Huh?

Pretty much. There's a lot of people in these parts who support a certain party line devotionally, but don't examine whether the rhetoric espoused as being one of personal freedom and progressive attitudes is actually being practiced, or if it's actually a case of newspeak word redefinition to fool people into supporting the polar opposite of what they actually believe. In their core, they try to live a life that frequently would be best characterized by a label they view as the "enemy", yet they hitch their wagon for "protection" in numbers to a group and philosophy that in practiced reality is the true opposition that perpetuates ideologies and power structures in defiance of their actual values.

What are you gonna do? Herd mentality in humans breeds some powerfully stupid behavior sometimes. ;)

[Annamal]

Pretty much. There's a lot of people in these parts who support a certain party line devotionally, but don't examine whether the rhetoric espoused as being one of personal freedom and progressive attitudes is actually being practiced, or if it's actually a case of newspeak word redefinition to fool people into supporting the polar opposite of what they actually believe. In their core, they try to live a life that frequently would be best characterized by a label they view as the "enemy", yet they hitch their wagon for "protection" in numbers to a group and philosophy that in practiced reality is the true opposition that perpetuates ideologies and power structures in defiance of their actual values.

What are you gonna do? Herd mentality in humans breeds some powerfully stupid behavior sometimes. ;)

What's been  really interesting has been transitioning from a two-party political system to a multi-party representative political system.

It hasn't all gone smoothly and there's an awful lot of people who still adhere to the "my team" vs "your team" school of politics but I'm grateful that I have a number of parties to choose to throw my vote behind, and that vote will have real weight no matter where I live.

One of the more interesting results is that the Green party has turned out to be one of the most well-behaved and constructive parties in parliment (and suprisingly tech savvy...still kind of woowoo over GE but in general good value for money).

There isn't currently any party that could be honestly described as libertarian (there was one but they decided to try to capitalise on the whole tougher sentences law and order crowd so these days their libertarian leanings are purely monetary), still every election we see new parties and new groupings of parties so maybe one will arise in the future.

[Cressida]

There are too many libertarians that claim government has no right to tell anyone what to do, but don't really mean it when it's something they don't agree with (drugs, gay marriage, etc.)

Yup. It's incoherent.

Republicans are happy to spend as much as Democrats but in different ways. Note that we're talking about Republicans in office and not the unicorn fiscally conservative Republican that is rarely seen (but often blogged about).

Totally. George W. Bush's wars, anyone? Insane amounts of money (never mind why they were a bad idea for other reasons).

[hybrid]

I'd say that if you were to give a one word description of Mustachians in regards to politics it would be Independents. After all, look at yourself dear reader. Do you follow the economic footsteps of the tax-and-spend Democrats (getting a raise and still living beyond it) or the borrow-and-spend Republicans (put it on the credit card in the hopes one will make more money to pay it off later)? Of course you don't.

Many of us are disgusted with Washington in general because of the sorry state of our nation's finances and both parties role in that mess. Were it up to us, we'd look at the national debt and say the problem is perfectly obvious. The government spends too much in relation to the taxes it brings in. And most of us are savvy enough to understand that a comprehensive solution will require a combination of spending cuts and additional tax revenues.

Our politicians will have none of that. They are too busy protecting their own sacred cows to lay down a sensible plan of easing off the spending and easing in some additional revenues. Because middle and upper class Americans just cannot afford that. Not when they have their own Exploding Volcanos of Wastefulness to maintain. 

[Emilyngh]

I'd say that if you were to give a one word description of Mustachians in regards to politics it would be Independents. After all, look at yourself dear reader. Do you follow the economic footsteps of the tax-and-spend Democrats (getting a raise and still living beyond it) or the borrow-and-spend Republicans (put it on the credit card in the hopes one will make more money to pay it off later)? Of course you don't.

Many of us are disgusted with Washington in general because of the sorry state of our nation's finances and both parties role in that mess. Were it up to us, we'd look at the national debt and say the problem is perfectly obvious. The government spends too much in relation to the taxes it brings in. And most of us are savvy enough to understand that a comprehensive solution will require a combination of spending cuts and additional tax revenues.

Our politicians will have none of that. They are too busy protecting their own sacred cows to lay down a sensible plan of easing off the spending and easing in some additional revenues. Because middle and upper class Americans just cannot afford that. Not when they have their own Exploding Volcanos of Wastefulness to maintain.

Naaaah.   I showed up on the far bottom left corner on the graph and I'm definitely a Democrat and not an independent.   Not that any party's perfect, but until we have a new Green party or something even more progressive than Democrat, it's the best fit, IMHO.   As far as linking Democrats' "tax and spend" to "getting a raise and still living above it," hasn't the whole analogy between US budget and a personal budget been disproven on here time and time again?   Why do some still insist on going back to it?

I also don't believe that the gov't spends too much.   On the contrary, I think that what the economy and citizens need is *more* gov't spending on the right things (eg., infrastructure, health care, healthy food, child care).   See: The work of Yale economist Shiller http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/14/federal-spending-stimulus-yale-economists-recommend_n_1011097.html, and Berkeley's Reich.   And I don't get the impression I'm alone on here with these views.

[Chuck]

It's enabled by Republican and Libertarian economic policy, but socially is very attractive to liberals.

Republicans are happy to spend as much as Democrats but in different ways.

That's not what I was referring to.

The modern Democratic Party is openly hostile to deferred taxation vehicles like 401k's, and ignorance of investing in general seems to be celebrated by liberals at large.

[hybrid]

I'd say that if you were to give a one word description of Mustachians in regards to politics it would be Independents. After all, look at yourself dear reader. Do you follow the economic footsteps of the tax-and-spend Democrats (getting a raise and still living beyond it) or the borrow-and-spend Republicans (put it on the credit card in the hopes one will make more money to pay it off later)? Of course you don't.

Many of us are disgusted with Washington in general because of the sorry state of our nation's finances and both parties role in that mess. Were it up to us, we'd look at the national debt and say the problem is perfectly obvious. The government spends too much in relation to the taxes it brings in. And most of us are savvy enough to understand that a comprehensive solution will require a combination of spending cuts and additional tax revenues.

Our politicians will have none of that. They are too busy protecting their own sacred cows to lay down a sensible plan of easing off the spending and easing in some additional revenues. Because middle and upper class Americans just cannot afford that. Not when they have their own Exploding Volcanos of Wastefulness to maintain.

Naaaah.   I showed up on the far bottom left corner on the graph and I'm definitely a Democrat and not an independent.   Not that any party's perfect, but until we have a new Green party or something even more progressive than Democrat, it's the best fit, IMHO.   As far as linking Democrats' "tax and spend" to "getting a raise and still living above it," hasn't the whole analogy between US budget and a personal budget been disproven on here time and time again?   Why do some still insist on going back to it?

I also don't believe that the gov't spends too much.   On the contrary, I think that what the economy and citizens need is *more* gov't spending on the right things (eg., infrastructure, health care, healthy food, child care).   See: The work of Yale economist Shiller http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/14/federal-spending-stimulus-yale-economists-recommend_n_1011097.html, and Berkeley's Reich.   And I don't get the impression I'm alone on here with these views.

I can give you 17 trillion good reasons (15 trillion since 1980ish). I voted for Clinton twice and I was thrilled to see the budget finally get into balance at the end of his watch. The reasons? The GOP Congress wasn't about to pass a bunch of additional social spending measures, the Democratic Executive wasn't about to bump up defense spending just after the Cold War ended, and most of all a booming economy (based heavily on things that previously did not exist like the widespread adoption of email, the Internet, and other huge technical leaps) boosted revenues through the roof.

In short, it was mostly a series of fortunate accidents and no grand plan though I am sure Reich, who served well under Clinton, would have you believe otherwise. We have not had a President or Party truly focused on getting our budgetary house in order for decades.

I would love to see more spending on the "right things" as well. Until we can get most of America to agree on what the right things are (half will tell you more defense spending is what we need) then what we ultimately have is a couple (a Democrat and a Republican) who bicker about which one is spending too much on their "stuff" and neither one willing to make any sacrifices to get the household budget in check.

I would love to vote Democratic and feel good about it (as I am lower left hand quadrant as well), but I know when I'm being sold a raw deal, and the Democrats have been doing exactly that for just about the entirety of the 21st century so far. Obama pays good lip service to eventually balancing the budget, he has done precious little to get us there.   

[matchewed]

It's enabled by Republican and Libertarian economic policy, but socially is very attractive to liberals.

Republicans are happy to spend as much as Democrats but in different ways.

That's not what I was referring to.

The modern Democratic Party is openly hostile to deferred taxation vehicles like 401k's, and ignorance of investing in general seems to be celebrated by liberals at large.

?? Citation needed.

Blanket generalizations aren't really helpful.

[anisotropy]

from the political compass test I ended up in the dead center. I think this means I have no principle and I stand for nothing.

Oh no !

[matchewed]

from the political compass test I ended up in the dead center. I think this means I have no principle and I stand for nothing.

Oh no !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_29yvYpf4w

[Constance Noring]

from the political compass test I ended up in the dead center. I think this means I have no principle and I stand for nothing.

Oh no !

Do you stand for the lack of chairs?

[SpeedReader]

I'm with Emilyngh and OSUBearCub -- progressive Democrat, lower left quadrant on the Political Compass test.

The self-identified libertarian and Republican persons I have met seem to lack imagination regarding people whose situations don't closely track their own.  Inevitably when one has an epiphany and changes his thinking, it's because he had a personal experience which thrust him into a new situation -- not from being able to project what it might be like in someone else's shoes.

[kite]

I would say mustachianism is a personal philosophy and not a political leaning but I would also say that a lot of mustachianism works a little better in places with good infrastructure, non-corrupt officials and well-maintained shared services like schools, libraries and parks.

I would also say that libertarian charity often falls down quite badly in the same sort of way that conservation charity does, people naturally give to causes with pandas and baby seals and tend to give less to causes that involve making sure a wetland stays swampy and that eels continue to be able to get up a creek.

It's easy to get people to give to charities for cancer or children and much harder to get them involved in housing adult alcoholics (even though that housing saves  society a huge amount in healthcare costs over the long term).

Does it really save costs in the long run?   The Oregon study on preventative care is showing the opposite and my prediction is that we'll see similar results almost everywhere else for every ailment.   Not suggesting at all that it isn't worthwhile,  only that we don't kid ourselves about the costs and what can be accomplished.   Personally,  I prefer donating to a charity that helps addicts over Big Pink or the ever popular cat shelters in my area.   But it's been my observation that most help fails to get the addict clean sober.  If our yardstick for worthiness is sobriety or eventual reduced cost, we've set ourselves up for disappointment.

[Fishingmn]

I'm with Emilyngh and OSUBearCub -- progressive Democrat, lower left quadrant on the Political Compass test.

The self-identified libertarian and Republican persons I have met seem to lack imagination regarding people whose situations don't closely track their own.  Inevitably when one has an epiphany and changes his thinking, it's because he had a personal experience which thrust him into a new situation -- not from being able to project what it might be like in someone else's shoes.

I was at like 0, -4

I consider myself a strong civil libertarian but not a progressive. Basically, neither party is anywhere close to my views on the civil liberties side when you look at where Obama & Romney were (upper right).

And while I used to trend more republican on fiscal issues I find myself really disliking their message - especially that of the tea party.

[netskyblue]

OMG...I'm a Libertarian!

I'd heard the term once or twice but this thread made me look into it.  I'd always regarded Republican as a dirty word, and didn't always find myself agreeing with Democrat policy (especially regarding fiscal matters), and I've never really believed Independent is a thing.

My whole worldview has somehow now shifted into place.

[Daley]

OMG...I'm a Libertarian!

I'd heard the term once or twice but this thread made me look into it.  I'd always regarded Republican as a dirty word, and didn't always find myself agreeing with Democrat policy (especially regarding fiscal matters), and I've never really believed Independent is a thing.

My whole worldview has somehow now shifted into place.

Just be careful throwing that word around in the wild as it no longer means what it should mean with most people, especially the ones who most vehemently claim that label in today's political climate. The bile, hatred and selfishness I see from so many modern self-professed individuals who identify and use that particular label to club other people over the head with these days makes my stomach turn. From a dictionary standpoint, it may be an accurate descriptor, but given where most modern professed "Libertarians" fall on the spectrum with their attitudes and beliefs (extreme upper right), I won't touch that label with a ten foot pole anymore. It's the latest in a long line of words distorted and re-branded through political manipulation.

Progressive libertarianism technically should and does go hand-in-hand as you and others have seen, yet even the OP of this very thread has fallen into the false dichotomy trap using this very inaccurate modern political definition of what a libertarian actually represents, claiming an either-or situation.

[OSUBearCub]

Here's an interesting analysis of Libertarianism. Unfortunately in this article they start from a bias - the standpoint of how the Tea Party is essentially divergent from classic Libertarian ideals - but the analysis is sound.

"Libertarians' views on issues were a mixture of left and right in the conventional partisan lineup. They were actually more opposed to Obamacare and to raising the minimum wage than either Tea Party adherents or white evangelicals. But libertarians were far less likely to oppose gay marriage than these other two groups (though the majority, 59 percent, of libertarians still did so, unlike the broader public). Unlike the other two groups, the majority of libertarians opposed making it more difficult for women to get an abortion and favored legalizing marijuana and physician-assisted suicide—views that tended to align more with Democrats than Republicans. And while majorities of Republicans and Democrats support making it harder to access pornography online, libertarians do not agree."

Also, when you consider Libertarianism, like Mustachianism, an umbrella term, things start to make more sense.  There are Minarchists, Anarchists, Left-Libertarians, Right Libertarians, Socialist Libertarians and even Anarcho-Capitalists.  The only common threads are the ideas that government should be limited in scope and power as electorate/proletariat sees fit, and these limitations should focus on reducing government spending/increasing personal freedom.  (This is a VERY simplified definition.)

So, like Mustachianism, the umbrella is quite large and there's room under it for everyone*. 

*Except for the Tea Party - as liberal as I am, I just can't tango with that much crazy.  Ha Ha.  (Just kidding, put your guns down Patriot.)

[Annamal]

Does it really save costs in the long run?   The Oregon study on preventative care is showing the opposite and my prediction is that we'll see similar results almost everywhere else for every ailment.   Not suggesting at all that it isn't worthwhile,  only that we don't kid ourselves about the costs and what can be accomplished.   Personally,  I prefer donating to a charity that helps addicts over Big Pink or the ever popular cat shelters in my area.   But it's been my observation that most help fails to get the addict clean sober.  If our yardstick for worthiness is sobriety or eventual reduced cost, we've set ourselves up for disappointment.

Housing alcoholics in wet shelters (where they are allowed alcohol) apparently saved a lot in on-going health costs and actually reduced drinking, it's counter-intuitive but seemingly true.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/20/the-wet-house-homeless-people-with-alcoholism-drink-less-when-booze-is-allowed/#ixzz1k1x4v0Xa

Mind you it is only one study in Seattle, it would be interesting to see if the results could be replicated

[Hedge_87]

from the political compass test I ended up in the dead center. I think this means I have no principle and I stand for nothing.

Oh no !

Lol don't worry your not alone.

[soccerluvof4]

To many names, labels for me. To much irresponsible government period.  I just would like the Government to live by whatever they vote for and be more responsible with our taxes ( doubt that will ever happen) and not tell me whats best for me with my money because they obviously have no clue. All this and the media is getting rich off of it. Hate the news. But to ops ? I think as most do its simply a philosophy but people can pick it a part and put certain things under one label or another if they want but what good is that anyways. 

[libertarian4321]

I would also say that libertarian charity often falls down quite badly in the same sort of way that conservation charity does, people naturally give to causes with pandas and baby seals and tend to give less to causes that involve making sure a wetland stays swampy and that eels continue to be able to get up a creek.

In my experience, a HUGE favorite charity among Libertarians (and, in case it's not obvious, I'm one of them) is the Nature Conservancy.

Which is pretty much all about making sure the wetland stays a wetland...

[libertarian4321]

OMG...I'm a Libertarian!

I'd heard the term once or twice but this thread made me look into it.  I'd always regarded Republican as a dirty word, and didn't always find myself agreeing with Democrat policy (especially regarding fiscal matters), and I've never really believed Independent is a thing.

My whole worldview has somehow now shifted into place.

I had the same experience about 20 years ago. I'd always thought I was a Republican, but I didn't really agree with their harsh, right-wing moralizing stance on social issues (or their love for spending tax money on an excessively large military).

It was nice to know that there was a party like the Libertarian Party, where we could be fiscal conservatives, but support personal freedom.

Less government, lower taxes, more freedom.  Sounds pretty good to me!

[libertarian4321]

"Libertarians' views on issues were a mixture of left and right in the conventional partisan lineup. They were actually more opposed to Obamacare and to raising the minimum wage than either Tea Party adherents or white evangelicals. But libertarians were far less likely to oppose gay marriage than these other two groups (though the majority, 59 percent, of libertarians still did so, unlike the broader public).

I'm curious as to what "Libertarians" the author you speak of was referring to.  I've been a Libertarian for 20+ years now.  I've held office within the party, and I've run for office many times as a Libertarian.  In other words, I'm a pretty active Libertarian.

My experience with Libertarians, even in socially conservative Texas, is that they tend to be almost 100% FOR gay marriage.  About the only "opposition" to it is from those purists who say that government shouldn't be sticking it's nose into marriage at all (it should be between the two people and, if they so choose, a church)- in other words, government should take no stance on gay marriage, since it's none of the government's business.

I can't remember ever meeting a Libertarian who was "against" gay marriage in the bigoted Christian way that a Republican typically would be (e.g. it's a sin against Jesus, the Bible says "one man, one woman" or similar bull crap).

[Annamal]

I would also say that libertarian charity often falls down quite badly in the same sort of way that conservation charity does, people naturally give to causes with pandas and baby seals and tend to give less to causes that involve making sure a wetland stays swampy and that eels continue to be able to get up a creek.

In my experience, a HUGE favorite charity among Libertarians (and, in case it's not obvious, I'm one of them) is the Nature Conservancy.

Which is pretty much all about making sure the wetland stays a wetland...

That's fantastic (although my experience suggests that it is often quite hard to convince people that attention needs to be paid to less photogenic forms of conservation) but my point still stands, people as a whole are less willing to give to effective schemes that do not immediately engage them (like housing alcoholics).

[milesdividendmd]

My ideal is a  libertarian approach when it comes to my own needs (ie practice self sufficiency and don't be a drag on others,) and a progressive approach when it comes to others needs (ie don't be judgmental of those less fortunate, they are often dealing with baggage I can't even fathom. And Be generous!)

Unfortunately, all too often I'm guilty of the opposite approach.

[Cressida]

My ideal is a  libertarian approach when it comes to my own needs (ie practice self sufficiency and don't be a drag on others,) and a progressive approach when it comes to others needs (ie don't be judgmental of those less fortunate, they are often dealing with baggage I can't even fathom. And Be generous!)

+1

[milesdividendmd]

"Libertarians' views on issues were a mixture of left and right in the conventional partisan lineup. They were actually more opposed to Obamacare and to raising the minimum wage than either Tea Party adherents or white evangelicals. But libertarians were far less likely to oppose gay marriage than these other two groups (though the majority, 59 percent, of libertarians still did so, unlike the broader public).

I'm curious as to what "Libertarians" the author you speak of was referring to.  I've been a Libertarian for 20+ years now.  I've held office within the party, and I've run for office many times as a Libertarian.  In other words, I'm a pretty active Libertarian.

My experience with Libertarians, even in socially conservative Texas, is that they tend to be almost 100% FOR gay marriage.  About the only "opposition" to it is from those purists who say that government shouldn't be sticking it's nose into marriage at all (it should be between the two people and, if they so choose, a church)- in other words, government should take no stance on gay marriage, since it's none of the government's business.

I can't remember ever meeting a Libertarian who was "against" gay marriage in the bigoted Christian way that a Republican typically would be (e.g. it's a sin against Jesus, the Bible says "one man, one woman" or similar bull crap).

How about a different example?

What is the American libertarian take on reproductive rights?

If Ron (former libertarian candidate for president) or Rand Paul is representative of the movement, it seems that personal liberty is not always a first principle, and government interference has its place.

[okonumiyaki]

I just keep wondering what the answer is, in the long run. Do you offer them a deal like Indira Gandhi's government did in India where the men get a life-long stipend in exchange for getting a vasectomy? They really loved that, in fact so much so that she was assassinated for it. In terms of their raw suitability to future forms of work, with the demands on human labor becoming ever more complex, what future possibly exists for these people? I realize this could devolve into Nazi-esque nonsense very quickly and don't wish to move things in that direction, but how do you somehow reverse generations upon generations of cultural programming, let alone whatever genetic component there is to intelligence? These days, no matter how much I recognize (and resent) the extent to which the Republicans cannot possibly be trusted with governing the country ever again, I can't possibly visualize the other side offering a viable alternative that doesn't involve the most productive members of society incentivizing the most unproductive members to reproduce at a rate several times higher. What's the endgame here, really? What can we all do to see to it that the Earth doesn't fulfill the "prophecy" of that horrible film Idiocracy?

Just to point out you are wrong on Indira Gandhi's assassination.  She was killed for ordering the army to storm the Sikh Golden Temple (their holiest shrine)  Two of her Sikh bodyguards (who she refused to have removed, even though she was advised to) did it in revenge.  The anti-sikh pogroms that swept India then killed >10,000.

The Emergency (when it looked as if she might take dictatorial power, and was pushing enforced family planning) is what you are referring to ended in the 1970's

[Bob W]

Spot on OSUBearCub.  Well said!  Though I take a Libertarian position politically, I agree with your statements.  I especially agree with your HOWEVER comment regarding taxes.  Though I lean Libertarian, I don't mind reasonable taxes for reasonable goods/services the government provides.  I recognize the benefit of having streets plowed in the winter.  I like that my trash gets picked up.  I like that people with kids don't HAVE to pay for expensive private schools if they can't afford them and kids can get a decent public education.  I'm happy to have reasonable environmental regulations in place so that companies can't just freely dump waste into our waterways without repercussion.  HOWEVER, like you said, I demand that my represenatives aren't total ass hats with those funds...or I hope they aren't ass-hats in general.  Ass-hattery leads to crony capitalism where coroporations use lobbyists and pay off politicians to push their agendas or give them favorable deals.

"[Mustachianism is] a tool that allows for easier self-actualization as a person, regardless of the philosophical basis of that actualization."  ~ Excellent quote!

Put me down as Libertarian Maximus.  I have worked for Government in a number of capacities over the years.  It is "Ass Hat City!"   Doesn't really matter who it is they piss away money on ineffective stuff.   Schools don't work,  war on poverty doesn't work,  military took 10 years to get Osama,  there is no cohesive energy policy.   The amount of money spent on so called policing (think NSA,  IRS) is huge.  Has crime gone down?  Nope, but incarceration for smoking hemp is way up.   The war on crime is merely a cover for the war on black males that started with welfare for unmarried women.   

My trash service is private,  cheap and works like a charm!   My car is private, cheap, works great!  Would I rather pay tolls than taxes for roads?  Hell yes!   Would I rather have competition in my electric utility instead of a Government granted monopoly?   Hell yes.   Would I rather see private schools over so called "free" schools.  Hell yes!   Would I like to see less police on my streets?  Hell yes! In my county they don't prevent crimes but make criminals out of people who drank 2 beers and drove home.   

There was a golden age in the US.  It was before the income tax.   Freedom reigned! 

Yep, some people were poor, miserable or sick.   Oh wait, people are still poor, miserable and sick.   

[PeachFuzzInVA]

I've seen a mixture of both around here. Philosophically, I'm probably closer to an anarchist than anything else, but I do vote (contradiction, I know) for the most libertarian candidate on the ballot.

[milesdividendmd]

Spot on OSUBearCub.  Well said!  Though I take a Libertarian position politically, I agree with your statements.  I especially agree with your HOWEVER comment regarding taxes.  Though I lean Libertarian, I don't mind reasonable taxes for reasonable goods/services the government provides.  I recognize the benefit of having streets plowed in the winter.  I like that my trash gets picked up.  I like that people with kids don't HAVE to pay for expensive private schools if they can't afford them and kids can get a decent public education.  I'm happy to have reasonable environmental regulations in place so that companies can't just freely dump waste into our waterways without repercussion.  HOWEVER, like you said, I demand that my represenatives aren't total ass hats with those funds...or I hope they aren't ass-hats in general.  Ass-hattery leads to crony capitalism where coroporations use lobbyists and pay off politicians to push their agendas or give them favorable deals.

"[Mustachianism is] a tool that allows for easier self-actualization as a person, regardless of the philosophical basis of that actualization."  ~ Excellent quote!

Put me down as Libertarian Maximus.  I have worked for Government in a number of capacities over the years.  It is "Ass Hat City!"   Doesn't really matter who it is they piss away money on ineffective stuff.   Schools don't work,  war on poverty doesn't work,  military took 10 years to get Osama,  there is no cohesive energy policy.   The amount of money spent on so called policing (think NSA,  IRS) is huge.  Has crime gone down?  Nope, but incarceration for smoking hemp is way up.   The war on crime is merely a cover for the war on black males that started with welfare for unmarried women.   

My trash service is private,  cheap and works like a charm!   My car is private, cheap, works great!  Would I rather pay tolls than taxes for roads?  Hell yes!   Would I rather have competition in my electric utility instead of a Government granted monopoly?   Hell yes.   Would I rather see private schools over so called "free" schools.  Hell yes!   Would I like to see less police on my streets?  Hell yes! In my county they don't prevent crimes but make criminals out of people who drank 2 beers and drove home.   

There was a golden age in the US.  It was before the income tax.   Freedom reigned! 

Yep, some people were poor, miserable or sick.   Oh wait, people are still poor, miserable and sick.   

The philosophy that you present is as simplistic as it is inaccurate.

Of course the government is inefficient. But have you ever worked for a large corporation? Large collections of people are inefficient. And there's very little evidence that privatizing public services like utilities, roads and bridges, infrastructure, trash collection saves the government a nickel of money. But there is ample evidence that keeping such services public is actually cheaper for the taxpayer.

Private companies are excellent at competing for profitable services. But when it comes to delivering unprofitable services for the public well-being, they are notoriously absent (as well they should be.) Worse when you privatize things such as jails you get private jail companies lobbying for three strikes and you're out policies to increase the criminal population and their own bottom line.

Or take health care. (This is a field in which I work.  I am a doctor.) The United States health care system is the most private healthcare system in the developed world. It is also the most expensive, and  the least effective at keeping its population healthy.

And what are the largest sources of inefficiency that separate our costly system from single-payer systems around the world? Insurance company profits, and pharmaceutical/device company profits.

Libertarians happily profit from the interstate highway system which never would've been built without the government. And then they slam the government that made it possible.

Libertarianism fails for the same reason that communism fails. It advocates a one-size-fits-all solution to a complex world that needs a  spectrum of approaches, both private and public.

[CarDude]

Would I like to see less police on my streets?  Hell yes! In my county they don't prevent crimes but make criminals out of people who drank 2 beers and drove home.   

There are lots of things I disagree with in what you said, but I'll just address this point here. Every single year in the United States, around 1 out of every 3 car crash deaths is due to alcohol. Every single year. A big, big part of why this is the case is because we are, contrary to your assertion, one of the most permissive societies toward drunk driving in the rich world. Our legal drinking limit of .08 is shamefully high, and is much higher than that in many other countries. Studies have also shown that as few as one drink results in a significant decrease in your driving abilities and increase in your likelihoods of causing a collision. There isn't a safe level of alcohol for driving, but a big part of why people continue to drink and drive is because of the pervasive attitude in our society (such as that which you expressed above) that people who have only a few drinks aren't doing anything wrong, are safe to drive, and should be ignored by the police, friends, and trusted to take care of themselves.

[milesdividendmd]

Would I like to see less police on my streets?  Hell yes! In my county they don't prevent crimes but make criminals out of people who drank 2 beers and drove home.   

There are lots of things I disagree with in what you said, but I'll just address this point here. Every single year in the United States, around 1 out of every 3 car crash deaths is due to alcohol. Every single year. A big, big part of why this is the case is because we are, contrary to your assertion, one of the most permissive societies toward drunk driving in the rich world. Our legal drinking limit of .08 is shamefully high, and is much higher than that in many other countries. Studies have also shown that as few as one drink results in a significant decrease in your driving abilities and increase in your likelihoods of causing a collision. There isn't a safe level of alcohol for driving, but a big part of why people continue to drink and drive is because of the pervasive attitude in our society (such as that which you expressed above) that people who have only a few drinks aren't doing anything wrong, are safe to drive, and should be ignored by the police, friends, and trusted to take care of themselves.

Great point and cool blog!

[S0VERE1GN]

libertarian checking in! however I'm a true blue libertarian. If it don't need a law: DONT MAKE ONE.

[grantmeaname]

libertarian checking in! however I'm a true blue libertarian. If it don't need a law: DONT MAKE ONE.

Isn't that how everyone feels about laws?

[fixer-upper]

libertarian checking in! however I'm a true blue libertarian. If it don't need a law: DONT MAKE ONE.

Isn't that how everyone feels about laws?

Not at all.  The world is full of people with control issues, who just aren't happy unless they're dictating how other people should live.

I enjoy pissing them off, if for no other reason than keeping them distracted from making up new rules for me to follow.

[libertarian4321]

"Libertarians' views on issues were a mixture of left and right in the conventional partisan lineup. They were actually more opposed to Obamacare and to raising the minimum wage than either Tea Party adherents or white evangelicals. But libertarians were far less likely to oppose gay marriage than these other two groups (though the majority, 59 percent, of libertarians still did so, unlike the broader public).

I'm curious as to what "Libertarians" the author you speak of was referring to.  I've been a Libertarian for 20+ years now.  I've held office within the party, and I've run for office many times as a Libertarian.  In other words, I'm a pretty active Libertarian.

My experience with Libertarians, even in socially conservative Texas, is that they tend to be almost 100% FOR gay marriage.  About the only "opposition" to it is from those purists who say that government shouldn't be sticking it's nose into marriage at all (it should be between the two people and, if they so choose, a church)- in other words, government should take no stance on gay marriage, since it's none of the government's business.

I can't remember ever meeting a Libertarian who was "against" gay marriage in the bigoted Christian way that a Republican typically would be (e.g. it's a sin against Jesus, the Bible says "one man, one woman" or similar bull crap).

How about a different example?

What is the American libertarian take on reproductive rights?

If Ron (former libertarian candidate for president) or Rand Paul is representative of the movement, it seems that personal liberty is not always a first principle, and government interference has its place.

This one is easy.  From the Libertarian Party Platform (www.lp.org) :

"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

Translation:  The government should stay the HELL out of it.  Let each individual to CHOOSE for himself. 
In other words, pro choice...

[libertarian4321]

Spot on OSUBearCub.  Well said!  Though I take a Libertarian position politically, I agree with your statements.  I especially agree with your HOWEVER comment regarding taxes.  Though I lean Libertarian, I don't mind reasonable taxes for reasonable goods/services the government provides.  I recognize the benefit of having streets plowed in the winter.  I like that my trash gets picked up.  I like that people with kids don't HAVE to pay for expensive private schools if they can't afford them and kids can get a decent public education.  I'm happy to have reasonable environmental regulations in place so that companies can't just freely dump waste into our waterways without repercussion.  HOWEVER, like you said, I demand that my represenatives aren't total ass hats with those funds...or I hope they aren't ass-hats in general.  Ass-hattery leads to crony capitalism where coroporations use lobbyists and pay off politicians to push their agendas or give them favorable deals.

"[Mustachianism is] a tool that allows for easier self-actualization as a person, regardless of the philosophical basis of that actualization."  ~ Excellent quote!

Put me down as Libertarian Maximus.  I have worked for Government in a number of capacities over the years.  It is "Ass Hat City!"   Doesn't really matter who it is they piss away money on ineffective stuff.   Schools don't work,  war on poverty doesn't work,  military took 10 years to get Osama,  there is no cohesive energy policy.   The amount of money spent on so called policing (think NSA,  IRS) is huge.  Has crime gone down?  Nope, but incarceration for smoking hemp is way up.   The war on crime is merely a cover for the war on black males that started with welfare for unmarried women.   

My trash service is private,  cheap and works like a charm!   My car is private, cheap, works great!  Would I rather pay tolls than taxes for roads?  Hell yes!   Would I rather have competition in my electric utility instead of a Government granted monopoly?   Hell yes.   Would I rather see private schools over so called "free" schools.  Hell yes!   Would I like to see less police on my streets?  Hell yes! In my county they don't prevent crimes but make criminals out of people who drank 2 beers and drove home.   

There was a golden age in the US.  It was before the income tax.   Freedom reigned! 

Yep, some people were poor, miserable or sick.   Oh wait, people are still poor, miserable and sick.   

The philosophy that you present is as simplistic as it is inaccurate.

Of course the government is inefficient. But have you ever worked for a large corporation? Large collections of people are inefficient.

There's inefficient, and there's inefficient.

Yes, people are inefficient, even in small groups.  Large corporations have significant inefficiencies.

I've worked for large corporations.  I've worked for the government.  Believe me, when it comes to inefficiency, they ain't even close.  Big corporations have inefficiencies that are annoying and frustrating, but generally, they get the job done (if they don't, the corporation won't last long).

Government inefficiency is a whole different animal.  It's inefficiency on a colossal and HOPELESS scale- where everyone knows the system is broken, but no one knows how to fix it.  So they don't even try after they've been there for a couple years, because even those who do have good ideas know they'll get slapped down for even attempting to implement them.  Even the most enthusiastic and idealist person will give up after slamming his head into a wall time after time after time. 

In the end, they just give up.  They hunker down like zombies, going through the motions, pushing paper around their desk, collecting a nice pay check, and not making waves until they get their pension 30 years down the line. 

[prof61820]

What are your thoughts on the issue? 

And whatever your political leanings, since you all are Mustachians or striving Mustachians, I agree with you all! :)

I'm for a strong economy and a strong military.  That's why I'm a liberal.

[milesdividendmd]

Spot on OSUBearCub.  Well said!  Though I take a Libertarian position politically, I agree with your statements.  I especially agree with your HOWEVER comment regarding taxes.  Though I lean Libertarian, I don't mind reasonable taxes for reasonable goods/services the government provides.  I recognize the benefit of having streets plowed in the winter.  I like that my trash gets picked up.  I like that people with kids don't HAVE to pay for expensive private schools if they can't afford them and kids can get a decent public education.  I'm happy to have reasonable environmental regulations in place so that companies can't just freely dump waste into our waterways without repercussion.  HOWEVER, like you said, I demand that my represenatives aren't total ass hats with those funds...or I hope they aren't ass-hats in general.  Ass-hattery leads to crony capitalism where coroporations use lobbyists and pay off politicians to push their agendas or give them favorable deals.

"[Mustachianism is] a tool that allows for easier self-actualization as a person, regardless of the philosophical basis of that actualization."  ~ Excellent quote!

Put me down as Libertarian Maximus.  I have worked for Government in a number of capacities over the years.  It is "Ass Hat City!"   Doesn't really matter who it is they piss away money on ineffective stuff.   Schools don't work,  war on poverty doesn't work,  military took 10 years to get Osama,  there is no cohesive energy policy.   The amount of money spent on so called policing (think NSA,  IRS) is huge.  Has crime gone down?  Nope, but incarceration for smoking hemp is way up.   The war on crime is merely a cover for the war on black males that started with welfare for unmarried women.   

My trash service is private,  cheap and works like a charm!   My car is private, cheap, works great!  Would I rather pay tolls than taxes for roads?  Hell yes!   Would I rather have competition in my electric utility instead of a Government granted monopoly?   Hell yes.   Would I rather see private schools over so called "free" schools.  Hell yes!   Would I like to see less police on my streets?  Hell yes! In my county they don't prevent crimes but make criminals out of people who drank 2 beers and drove home.   

There was a golden age in the US.  It was before the income tax.   Freedom reigned! 

Yep, some people were poor, miserable or sick.   Oh wait, people are still poor, miserable and sick.   

The philosophy that you present is as simplistic as it is inaccurate.

Of course the government is inefficient. But have you ever worked for a large corporation? Large collections of people are inefficient.

There's inefficient, and there's inefficient.

Yes, people are inefficient, even in small groups.  Large corporations have significant inefficiencies.

I've worked for large corporations.  I've worked for the government.  Believe me, when it comes to inefficiency, they ain't even close.  Big corporations have inefficiencies that are annoying and frustrating, but generally, they get the job done (if they don't, the corporation won't last long).

Government inefficiency is a whole different animal.  It's inefficiency on a colossal and HOPELESS scale- where everyone knows the system is broken, but no one knows how to fix it.  So they don't even try after they've been there for a couple years, because even those who do have good ideas know they'll get slapped down for even attempting to implement them.  Even the most enthusiastic and idealist person will give up after slamming his head into a wall time after time after time. 

In the end, they just give up.  They hunker down like zombies, going through the motions, pushing paper around their desk, collecting a nice pay check, and not making waves until they get their pension 30 years down the line.

This is your own personal view of the world being expressed here, with no evidence.  We all have our biases, and as a libertarian yours are predictable and quite transparent ( As are mine as a progressive.)

I too have worked for the government and small businesses and profitable large corporations, and there was no discernable difference in efficiency between the large corporation and the government.  Corporations did tend to be better funded, though.

There are plenty of examples where government accomplishes things for the public good that that private industry can or will not.  Some of which I have detailed above (health care, infrastructure projects with no early ROI, rural postal service, to name a few.)

[Ricky]

One theory is that both MMM and Jason @ ERE were not born in the United States. They grew up outside of the US. They have more of an outside perspective of Americans than most American. That could explain the itch to be different and post all of their philosophies online for all us Americans to read.

Both ERE and MMM are IMO (from reading thoughts of others) too extreme for most Americans. Americans just have a hard time adjusting when they've lived the growing part of their years accustomed to certain things and experiences. MMM was born in Canada, which is still very capitalist but not nearly as frivolous as America in terms of the spend culture. Jason being from Denmark is very similar as all three countries have roughly the same GDP per capita - so all three are almost equally rich countries. It's sad that America actually doesn't even make the top 10 in the world as far as wealthiest countries yet we are known for all of our credit card debt and excessive spending and fatty foods.

Maybe that will help think about any possible political influences?

That said, I don't think "Mustachianism" relies too heavily on values and ideas implemented by Liberals or Progressivists. Both parties are very similar in that they both (in the US) call for more equal rights for all and a larger government. The ideas on this site basically cater to a more self sufficient individual who isn't counting on Social Security and relies on one's self other than anything else.

"Liberal" can mean different things in different countries too. In Australia, Liberals want more freedom in private enterprise, where in America, Liberals want more government regulation in business. I know most of us are referring to the latter but its still important to clarify.

I think if ANY political philosophy influences MMM, its Libertarian.

[prof61820]

The ideas on this site basically cater to a more self sufficient individual who isn't counting on Social Security and relies on one's self other than anything else.

I think MMM and most adherents are counting on social security as part of their retirement portfolio.  Why wouldn't you as well?

[Ricky]

The ideas on this site basically cater to a more self sufficient individual who isn't counting on Social Security and relies on one's self other than anything else.

I think MMM and most adherents are counting on social security as part of their retirement portfolio.  Why wouldn't you as well?

Because you aren't going to draw SS at 30? Or even 40. Hell you may not draw it at all. The whole point of the blog is to be financially independent as soon as possible, which means independence from the government too.

[prof61820]

The ideas on this site basically cater to a more self sufficient individual who isn't counting on Social Security and relies on one's self other than anything else.

I think MMM and most adherents are counting on social security as part of their retirement portfolio.  Why wouldn't you as well?

Because you aren't going to draw SS at 30? Or even 40. Hell you may not draw it at all. The whole point of the blog is to be financially independent as soon as possible, which means independence from the government too.

I think you should reread MMM's posts.  He works within the governmental and economic system: Obamacare, SS, Medicare to become and stay FIRE - not independent of the government - whatever that may mean.

[Ricky]

The ideas on this site basically cater to a more self sufficient individual who isn't counting on Social Security and relies on one's self other than anything else.

I think MMM and most adherents are counting on social security as part of their retirement portfolio.  Why wouldn't you as well?

Because you aren't going to draw SS at 30? Or even 40. Hell you may not draw it at all. The whole point of the blog is to be financially independent as soon as possible, which means independence from the government too.

I think you should reread MMM's posts.  He works within the governmental and economic system: Obamacare, SS, Medicare to become and stay FIRE - not independent of the government - whatever that may mean.

There is a difference between "counting on" and "being aware of". MMM doesn't count on any of those things. He is aware of them because he knows they can affect him in a positive way. Not many people here qualify for Medicare. And you won't until your 65. Same goes for Social Security. So why would a "FIRE" conscious person be concerned at all about what in the hoot the government has in store for them?

No offense but you're the one who needs to connect the dots here... MMM's demographic is high income/highly educated. Obamacare's demographic is those within the 100-400% poverty threshold. Only those individuals get subsidies. MMM does NOT get subsidies and in fact his insurance rates went up.

MMM is in every way pro self-reliance. It's not to say he is anti-government or anti-entitlements. He just doesn't depend on them. The ideas he spreads doesn't depend on any kind of government related program either.

[prof61820]

The ideas on this site basically cater to a more self sufficient individual who isn't counting on Social Security and relies on one's self other than anything else.

I think MMM and most adherents are counting on social security as part of their retirement portfolio.  Why wouldn't you as well?

Because you aren't going to draw SS at 30? Or even 40. Hell you may not draw it at all. The whole point of the blog is to be financially independent as soon as possible, which means independence from the government too.

I think you should reread MMM's posts.  He works within the governmental and economic system: Obamacare, SS, Medicare to become and stay FIRE - not independent of the government - whatever that may mean.

There is a difference between "counting on" and "being aware of". MMM doesn't count on any of those things. He is aware of them because he knows they can affect him in a positive way. Not many people here qualify for Medicare. And you won't until your 65. Same goes for Social Security. So why would a "FIRE" conscious person be concerned at all about what in the hoot the government has in store for them?

No offense but you're the one who needs to connect the dots here... MMM's demographic is high income/highly educated. Obamacare's demographic is those within the 100-400% poverty threshold. Only those individuals get subsidies. MMM does NOT get subsidies and in fact his insurance rates went up.

MMM is in every way pro self-reliance. It's not to say he is anti-government or anti-entitlements. He just doesn't depend on them. The ideas he spreads doesn't depend on any kind of government related program either.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.  MMM and his family are on Obamacare and from what I've read, he and many others on here see it as a boon for early retirement.  I also think most US residents on here are FIRE precisely because they know they will draw SS and have Medicare pay their medical bills after 65.  If they didn't think so, they would continue to work and accumulate.

[MeghanD82]

Spot on OSUBearCub.  Well said!  Though I take a Libertarian position politically, I agree with your statements.  I especially agree with your HOWEVER comment regarding taxes.  Though I lean Libertarian, I don't mind reasonable taxes for reasonable goods/services the government provides.  I recognize the benefit of having streets plowed in the winter.  I like that my trash gets picked up.  I like that people with kids don't HAVE to pay for expensive private schools if they can't afford them and kids can get a decent public education.  I'm happy to have reasonable environmental regulations in place so that companies can't just freely dump waste into our waterways without repercussion.  HOWEVER, like you said, I demand that my represenatives aren't total ass hats with those funds...or I hope they aren't ass-hats in general.  Ass-hattery leads to crony capitalism where coroporations use lobbyists and pay off politicians to push their agendas or give them favorable deals.

"[Mustachianism is] a tool that allows for easier self-actualization as a person, regardless of the philosophical basis of that actualization."  ~ Excellent quote!

Put me down as Libertarian Maximus.  I have worked for Government in a number of capacities over the years.  It is "Ass Hat City!"   Doesn't really matter who it is they piss away money on ineffective stuff.   Schools don't work,  war on poverty doesn't work,  military took 10 years to get Osama,  there is no cohesive energy policy.   The amount of money spent on so called policing (think NSA,  IRS) is huge.  Has crime gone down?  Nope, but incarceration for smoking hemp is way up.   The war on crime is merely a cover for the war on black males that started with welfare for unmarried women.   

My trash service is private,  cheap and works like a charm!   My car is private, cheap, works great!  Would I rather pay tolls than taxes for roads?  Hell yes!   Would I rather have competition in my electric utility instead of a Government granted monopoly?   Hell yes.   Would I rather see private schools over so called "free" schools.  Hell yes!   Would I like to see less police on my streets?  Hell yes! In my county they don't prevent crimes but make criminals out of people who drank 2 beers and drove home.   

There was a golden age in the US.  It was before the income tax.   Freedom reigned! 

Yep, some people were poor, miserable or sick.   Oh wait, people are still poor, miserable and sick.   

The philosophy that you present is as simplistic as it is inaccurate.

Of course the government is inefficient. But have you ever worked for a large corporation? Large collections of people are inefficient. And there's very little evidence that privatizing public services like utilities, roads and bridges, infrastructure, trash collection saves the government a nickel of money. But there is ample evidence that keeping such services public is actually cheaper for the taxpayer.

Private companies are excellent at competing for profitable services. But when it comes to delivering unprofitable services for the public well-being, they are notoriously absent (as well they should be.) Worse when you privatize things such as jails you get private jail companies lobbying for three strikes and you're out policies to increase the criminal population and their own bottom line.

Or take health care. (This is a field in which I work.  I am a doctor.) The United States health care system is the most private healthcare system in the developed world. It is also the most expensive, and  the least effective at keeping its population healthy.

And what are the largest sources of inefficiency that separate our costly system from single-payer systems around the world? Insurance company profits, and pharmaceutical/device company profits.

Libertarians happily profit from the interstate highway system which never would've been built without the government. And then they slam the government that made it possible.

Libertarianism fails for the same reason that communism fails. It advocates a one-size-fits-all solution to a complex world that needs a  spectrum of approaches, both private and public.

Thank you for responding. I kept typing something out but I didn't want to engage in an argument. I work in government on social programs and we are not "Ass Hats". Typically you see those characters in agencies that have friends on the right side of the aisle because they aren't subjected to scrutiny like my agency is. Working for the government has made me hate all politics. I like MMM's argument that we shouldn't worry ourselves with things beyond our circle of control. For me, that gets tricky because I have to write things that Congress sees, and their decisions influence my.daily work life. I hate it, and look forward to going in to another line of work once I reach some financial goals.

Also, I'm paying ridiculously high electric bills now that I live somewhere with deregulation (Virginia).

[Ricky]

The ideas on this site basically cater to a more self sufficient individual who isn't counting on Social Security and relies on one's self other than anything else.

I think MMM and most adherents are counting on social security as part of their retirement portfolio.  Why wouldn't you as well?

Because you aren't going to draw SS at 30? Or even 40. Hell you may not draw it at all. The whole point of the blog is to be financially independent as soon as possible, which means independence from the government too.

I think you should reread MMM's posts.  He works within the governmental and economic system: Obamacare, SS, Medicare to become and stay FIRE - not independent of the government - whatever that may mean.

There is a difference between "counting on" and "being aware of". MMM doesn't count on any of those things. He is aware of them because he knows they can affect him in a positive way. Not many people here qualify for Medicare. And you won't until your 65. Same goes for Social Security. So why would a "FIRE" conscious person be concerned at all about what in the hoot the government has in store for them?

No offense but you're the one who needs to connect the dots here... MMM's demographic is high income/highly educated. Obamacare's demographic is those within the 100-400% poverty threshold. Only those individuals get subsidies. MMM does NOT get subsidies and in fact his insurance rates went up.

MMM is in every way pro self-reliance. It's not to say he is anti-government or anti-entitlements. He just doesn't depend on them. The ideas he spreads doesn't depend on any kind of government related program either.

I think were going to have to agree to disagree on this one.  MMM and his family are on Obamacare and from what I've read, he and many others on here see it as a boon for early retirement.  I also think most US residents on here are FIRE precisely because they know they will draw SS and have Medicare pay their medical bills after 65.  If they didn't think so, they would continue to work and accumulate.

You're deviating from your original argument, which was solely SS. Obamacare can be useful to an early retiree drawing between 100 and 400% of the poverty income level, yes, and its very useful to know this information. I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that in no way shape or form has MMM ever advocated reliance on SS or ANY type of government program for that matter.

You can't rely on SS and retire early at the same time. That's an oxymoron. If retiring early like MMM means age 30 or even age 40 then you have at least 25 more years before SS is even a factor. Can anyone accurately predict your spending habits, inflation, portfolio withdrawals, and a myriad of other factors that may occur in that amount of time??? Even extremely conservative and careful prudent planning would probably fall short of that plan becoming successful.

MMM's thoughts on SS: "They end up with a total ‘stash of $2.329 million by age 65 or so, just in time to start enjoying the additional (but totally unnecessary) boost of Medicare and Social Security benefits." Take home message is this is totally unnecessary to even worry about for someone pursuing true financial independence, which is what MMM advocates.

[prof61820]

The ideas on this site basically cater to a more self sufficient individual who isn't counting on Social Security and relies on one's self other than anything else.

I think MMM and most adherents are counting on social security as part of their retirement portfolio.  Why wouldn't you as well?

Because you aren't going to draw SS at 30? Or even 40. Hell you may not draw it at all. The whole point of the blog is to be financially independent as soon as possible, which means independence from the government too.

I think you should reread MMM's posts.  He works within the governmental and economic system: Obamacare, SS, Medicare to become and stay FIRE - not independent of the government - whatever that may mean.

There is a difference between "counting on" and "being aware of". MMM doesn't count on any of those things. He is aware of them because he knows they can affect him in a positive way. Not many people here qualify for Medicare. And you won't until your 65. Same goes for Social Security. So why would a "FIRE" conscious person be concerned at all about what in the hoot the government has in store for them?

No offense but you're the one who needs to connect the dots here... MMM's demographic is high income/highly educated. Obamacare's demographic is those within the 100-400% poverty threshold. Only those individuals get subsidies. MMM does NOT get subsidies and in fact his insurance rates went up.

MMM is in every way pro self-reliance. It's not to say he is anti-government or anti-entitlements. He just doesn't depend on them. The ideas he spreads doesn't depend on any kind of government related program either.

I think were going to have to agree to disagree on this one.  MMM and his family are on Obamacare and from what I've read, he and many others on here see it as a boon for early retirement.  I also think most US residents on here are FIRE precisely because they know they will draw SS and have Medicare pay their medical bills after 65.  If they didn't think so, they would continue to work and accumulate.

You're deviating from your original argument, which was solely SS. Obamacare can be useful to an early retiree drawing between 100 and 400% of the poverty income level, yes, and its very useful to know this information. I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that in no way shape or form has MMM ever advocated reliance on SS or ANY type of government program for that matter.

You can't rely on SS and retire early at the same time. That's an oxymoron. If retiring early like MMM means age 30 or even age 40 then you have at least 25 more years before SS is even a factor. Can anyone accurately predict your spending habits, inflation, portfolio withdrawals, and a myriad of other factors that may occur in that amount of time??? Even extremely conservative and careful prudent planning would probably fall short of that plan becoming successful.

MMM's thoughts on SS: "They end up with a total ‘stash of $2.329 million by age 65 or so, just in time to start enjoying the additional (but totally unnecessary) boost of Medicare and Social Security benefits." Take home message is this is totally unnecessary to even worry about for someone pursuing true financial independence, which is what MMM advocates.

I'm being completely consistent.  You just don't understand how to calculate FIRE.  With SS and Medicare (and now Obamacare) FIRE comes sooner rather than later because you need to save less.  If you take Obamacare, SS and Medicare out of the calculus most would not ever be able to retire at all let alone retire early.

That's an interesting quote but no citation.  Please post a citation and I'll take a look and comment, if necessary.  Keep in mind that in a nation where insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions can be denied for a retiree over 65, $2.329 million is a drop in the proverbial bucket.  Even under your example, Medicare or Obamacare (or both) is essential to control and limit personal healthcare costs.