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

[randymarsh]

It's from First Retire, Then Get Rich. http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/05/14/first-retire-then-get-rich/

But I think the larger point is that after FIRE, you'll find you actually don't stop earning money. Your hobby or side hustle will produce income and it's work you want to do. So for many here, SS won't actually be required. It's still a nice safety net though.

I think MMM would take an Obamacare subsidy if their income qualified them to. I don't know if I'd say they're "on Obamacare" currently though. For one, Obamacare isn't an insurance policy or health service. It just sets minimum standards for insurance, a convenient way to enroll, and possibly helps with costs. MMM doesn't receive a subsidy; he just bought a plan that meets the law's requirements.

[thepokercab]

I agree that I doubt folks who are thinking about FIRE, really give Social Security a lot of consideration.  However, they are probably giving Medicare huge consideration without even thinking about it. I don't think its really controversial to say that Medicare is a huge boon to the early retiree, or any retiree for that matter. With Medicare in place, folks definitely get to FIRE sooner because they, theoretically, don't have to worry about those costs after the age of 65.  For example:

For an average healthy couple retiring next year, HealthView Services' data shows retirement health care costs will amount to about $366,600 in today's dollars. In another 10 years, costs will rise to approximately $421,000 in today's dollars

Health care cost inflation is also 5% to 7% per year.  It would take longer for folks to FIRE if they also had to amass hundreds of thousands of dollars to ensure enough money to cover after 65 health care expenses.  I feel like I've seen a lot of FIRE scenarios and budgets on this board, and none of them have included hundreds of thousands of dollars in health care spending.   

[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.

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.)

The government, with enough money thrown at a problem, "gets the job done."  That doesn't make it efficient.

The military is often cited as the most efficient branch of government.

Having spent 30 years in the military (active and reserve), and working for years as a contractor to the military, I can assure you, the military pisses away money on ridiculous shit every day.  Mind numbingly stupid stuff.

Sure, with enough money and brute force, they usually manage to get the job done, and we all get to wave flags and praise the military, but it ain't pretty, folks.

I wasn't a libertarian when I joined the military.  Working for the government and with the government, seeing the ridiculous, inefficient, daily cluster f*ck behind the military made me a libertarian.

For those who haven't seen it, I wish I could take you along for just one day to see how the government works.  I think even some of the die hard "progressives" who think the government is the answer to every problem would be doing a face palm while watching the goat screw that I see every day.

You want to stop Al Queda?  Don't send the military to bomb them.  Offer them assistance through a US Government agency.  Al Queda will be so hopelessly lost in the bureaucratic morass that they'll never be able to launch another attack on the USA. 

I'm only slightly kidding.

[libertarian4321]

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.

""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."

That is kind of what "liberal" used to mean in the USA.  Classical liberals (like Jefferson) have almost nothing in common with big government socialist "liberals" of today.  Classical liberals essentially believe what modern day libertarians believe.

Libertarians support personal freedom, which includes many modern "liberal" causes like gay rights, pro choice, etc, plus a lot of freedom most modern big government liberals will not support (e.g. ending the insane War on Drugs).  Basically, when it comes to individual freedom, libertarians are far more progressive than modern big government liberals.

Republicans/conservatives hate us because we support individual freedoms (the right wing social conservatives really don't like that).  Oh yeah, Republicans also hate the fact that libertarians tend to vocally oppose STUPID WARS (e.g. Iraq).  Democrats (modern big government "liberals") hate us because we don't support wasteful "Robin Hood" social spending and wealth redistribution programs.  I guess when both the Dems and Reps don't like us, we libertarians must be doing something right :)

[prof61820]

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.

""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."

That is kind of what "liberal" used to mean in the USA.  Classical liberals (like Jefferson) have almost nothing in common with big government socialist "liberals" of today.  Classical liberals essentially believe what modern day libertarians believe.

Libertarians support personal freedom, which includes many modern "liberal" causes like gay rights, pro choice, etc, plus a lot of freedom most modern big government liberals will not support (e.g. ending the insane War on Drugs).  Basically, when it comes to individual freedom, libertarians are far more progressive than modern big government liberals.

Republicans/conservatives hate us because we support individual freedoms (the right wing social conservatives really don't like that).  Oh yeah, Republicans also hate the fact that libertarians tend to vocally oppose STUPID WARS (e.g. Iraq).  Democrats (modern big government "liberals") hate us because we don't support wasteful "Robin Hood" social spending and wealth redistribution programs.  I guess when both the Dems and Reps don't like us, we libertarians must be doing something right :)

I think liberals in the US want a strong economy and see well regulated (not over regulated) capitalism, rather than laissez-faire capitalism, as the best way for a society to achieve this.  I think liberals also want a strong national defense to protect the nation (liberal presidents won the two world wars for the US) and also believe that staying active in global affairs is important and will save money in the long term if we avoid a third world war.  The best way to achieve this is not by borrowing and spending money on national defense as the "conservatives" have done or by hiding behind our borders as Libertarians advocate, but by creating a more egalitarian economy and national community that has fewer obstacles and broader participation.  Ultimately, this strong economy will create the economic basis for national defense and foreign policy.

My problem with Libertarians is that their "personal freedom" often means asking US citizens to participate in a rigged financial game.  Another way of looking at this, for example, is that Libertarians see nothing wrong with forcing a team of 10 year olds to play football against a college football team.   None of us would allow our 10 year olds into this type of rigged competition, however, that's exactly the type of economic competition Libertarians advocate.  It's patently unfair to ask persons to compete against others when we all know that money - and typically inherited money - is a huge factor in winning the competition.  This is simply not real competition.  If the US economy becomes too much of a rigged game solely based on money, many people will simply withdraw and we'll lose their talents and and their economic contributions.  This is very bad for both the economy and for our society.  I think that's why liberals advocate for public education and libraries, safety net programs, public transportation, and progressive taxation to produce a healthy economy and, ultimately, a strong national defense.

[prof61820]

I started struggling with whether the tenets of Mustachianism are aligned more with Libertarian thought or Progressive thought.  A lot of the comments below the blog made good points that argue for both ways.  However, as often happens in political-based articles/blogs, there were a lot of troll comments that were merely unproductive political rants and arguing.  I'd just like to get people's thoughts on whether they think Mustachianism agrees more with Libertarian thought, Progressive thought, or maybe a little of both?

MMM's son attends a public school and public education is a big part of his FIRE plan.  Public parks and libraries are a big part of his family's frugal lifestyle and entertainment.  I wish everyone in the US lived this way because public schools, parks and libraries would be even better than they are now. 

The MMM FIRE strategy seems pretty liberal/progressive to me and relies on the government to provide and maintain these things (now only if we could get government wifi) and many others (social security, medicare and Obamacare) or MMM's FIRE number jumps higher and higher. 

Keep in mind, that liberals who see value in the government and have sympathy for those less fortunate do not forsake personal responsibility - in other words it's not an either or choice like many try to argue on this site.  Also, there are plenty of pragmatic reasons to want the government in our lives (see above) because without it, financial independence and early retirement would simply be a pipe dream.

[Ricky]

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.

I guess what I was trying to say (which I thought I said it pretty clearly) was that we have all concluded that "Mustachianism" isn't really aligned with any political agenda. Entitlements are generally part of some political agenda. I was suggesting that maybe some political ideas influence MMM but I don't think that he is carrying his political agenda in his ideas. No where is MMM suggesting that you rely on any government entitlement to fuel your retirement. He does have a great post on Obamacare that outlines potentially how an early retiree with income between 100 and 400% of the poverty threshold could benefit from such a program. Again, this is the difference in being "aware" and "reliant". He's not saying that you should always count on these programs. What he preaches seems to be more self-reliance than anything - which hints to me freedom from government. Freedom from government indicates that you aren't worried about things you can't control like entitlements.

I just know that I'm personally not the least concerned with drawing SS. To me the ideal withdrawal rate doesn't touch principal. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think MMM ever even mentions using the "FIRE" calculator. That's because it isn't necessary to him. MMM lives by that and so do many other financial bloggers. MMM also preaches the fact that you should be saving even in retirement in order to grow your egg and build your "financial muscles". That said, if you're already saving in retirement, there is no reason to have a need for the additional SS benefits. Medicare, maybe, but if you already have a plan then there should still be no reason to rely on it. The quote is from: First Retire…Then Get Rich - Mr. Money Mustache (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/05/14/first-retire-then-get-rich/)

I think maybe you are misconstruing strict "Mustachianism" (the title of this thread) with "FIRE" in general. MMM hosts a different blog, that of which I was referring to when I said that his ideas are about complete financial independence. Meaning, independence from relying on any outside source other than one's self (including government). Government programs for him are "icing on the cake". He is happy to take part in them, but they aren't necessarily part of his calculations.

The MMM FIRE strategy seems pretty liberal/progressive to me and relies on the government to provide and maintain these things (now only if we could get government wifi) and many others (social security, medicare and Obamacare) or MMM's FIRE number jumps higher and higher. 

I think the problem with this thinking is you're assuming that he would otherwise go out and spend money if he didn't have public parks and libraries to roam about in? As if he couldn't still ride his bicycle and participate in cheap entertainment provided by private enterprise? Again, there is a difference in "relying" and "being aware of". By being aware, he is taking advantage of theses programs but that doesn't mean his plans default if suddenly the government stopped spending less on public services and entitlements...

[Khan]

Democrats (modern big government "liberals") hate us because we don't support wasteful "Robin Hood" social spending and wealth redistribution programs.

False. I was a registered Libertarian for the last 2 presidential election cycles, I voted for Nader in '08, and for Gary Johnson in '12. I consider myself a social libertarian, against the drug war, against the NSA's defacement of the Bill of Rights, against the Patriot Act, etc.

I dislike the Libertarian party because IMO your economic prescriptions are idealized. The libertarian economic platform boils down in too many cases to "Free Market solves all". Ignoring cases of natural monopolies(in healthcare and in other circles), imagining that if everybody wasn't lazy, they'd be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, ignoring the luck and history that all too often factors into personal success.

Further, on personal responsibility, from the libertarian platform:

We favor a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any)

Amongst other things, Healthcare is not a choice, unless the glorious free market is able to turn away people at the door. You can either have a system in which everyone is guaranteed a minimum standard of healthcare(being able to be seen at hospitals[thanks Reagan!], single payer, and/or insurance mandates), or you can have people go up to hospitals in their hour of need and get turned away.

Despite their faults, I wouldn't trade OSHA or the EPA for "free market responsibility" and "corporate governance". Just look at the shit Duke Energy pulls with their coal ash ponds now, and you think that they'd get away with less in a libertarian paradise?
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2014/03/05/unlined-and-dangerous-duke-energys-32-coal-ash-ponds-in-north-carolina-pose-a-threat-to-groundwater/

[prof61820]

No where is MMM suggesting that you rely on any government entitlement to fuel your retirement.

I think by sending his son to public school he's actually doing it and I don't think he's budgeting to pay all of his family's medical costs privately after the age of 65 but instead relying on Medicare.  I have yet to see a post from MMM that public schools, public libraries, public parks, public roads and bike paths, SS, medicare and Obamacare are somehow wasteful government programs or overreaching by the government or something that the private sector could supply better and more cheaply.  I think what you are seeing is a liberal who is also very analytic, resourceful and has a strong sense of personal responsibility.  There are a lot folks that were raised that way, believe it or not, and even though they believe in government helping others they are incredibly self sufficient.  In fact, this was one of the messages that vaulted Obama into the national spotlight at the DNC in Boston in 2004.  Obama's message of education, hard work and personal responsibility connected him with white suburban voters all over the country.

Here is the speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWynt87PaJ0

[Cressida]

I dislike the Libertarian party because IMO your economic prescriptions are idealized. The libertarian economic platform boils down in too many cases to "Free Market solves all". Ignoring cases of natural monopolies(in healthcare and in other circles), imagining that if everybody wasn't lazy, they'd be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, ignoring the luck and history that all too often factors into personal success.

+1. Exactly.

[libertarian4321]

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.

""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."

That is kind of what "liberal" used to mean in the USA.  Classical liberals (like Jefferson) have almost nothing in common with big government socialist "liberals" of today.  Classical liberals essentially believe what modern day libertarians believe.

Libertarians support personal freedom, which includes many modern "liberal" causes like gay rights, pro choice, etc, plus a lot of freedom most modern big government liberals will not support (e.g. ending the insane War on Drugs).  Basically, when it comes to individual freedom, libertarians are far more progressive than modern big government liberals.

Republicans/conservatives hate us because we support individual freedoms (the right wing social conservatives really don't like that).  Oh yeah, Republicans also hate the fact that libertarians tend to vocally oppose STUPID WARS (e.g. Iraq).  Democrats (modern big government "liberals") hate us because we don't support wasteful "Robin Hood" social spending and wealth redistribution programs.  I guess when both the Dems and Reps don't like us, we libertarians must be doing something right :)

I think liberals in the US want a strong economy and see well regulated (not over regulated) capitalism, rather than laissez-faire capitalism, as the best way for a society to achieve this.  I think liberals also want a strong national defense to protect the nation (liberal presidents won the two world wars for the US) and also believe that staying active in global affairs is important and will save money in the long term if we avoid a third world war.  The best way to achieve this is not by borrowing and spending money on national defense as the "conservatives" have done or by hiding behind our borders as Libertarians advocate, but by creating a more egalitarian economy and national community that has fewer obstacles and broader participation.  Ultimately, this strong economy will create the economic basis for national defense and foreign policy.

My problem with Libertarians is that their "personal freedom" often means asking US citizens to participate in a rigged financial game.  Another way of looking at this, for example, is that Libertarians see nothing wrong with forcing a team of 10 year olds to play football against a college football team.   None of us would allow our 10 year olds into this type of rigged competition, however, that's exactly the type of economic competition Libertarians advocate.  It's patently unfair to ask persons to compete against others when we all know that money - and typically inherited money - is a huge factor in winning the competition.  This is simply not real competition.  If the US economy becomes too much of a rigged game solely based on money, many people will simply withdraw and we'll lose their talents and and their economic contributions.  This is very bad for both the economy and for our society.  I think that's why liberals advocate for public education and libraries, safety net programs, public transportation, and progressive taxation to produce a healthy economy and, ultimately, a strong national defense.

You do realize that the overwhelming majority of millionaires in this country, and the overwhelming majority  even of those on the Forbes 400 richest Americans inherited little or NONE of their wealth, right?  And yeah, I'm in that first group.

Yes, the children of the wealthy do have an advantage over the children of the poor and lower middle class (where I started out), but everyone in this country has a chance to become wealthy. 

It's not 100% fair, but it's for damned sure not the kind of impossible to win "rigged game" you portray in your ridiculous "football" comment (which, frankly, makes no sense at all).

BTW, we Libertarians support a strong national defense.  But they don't support using a bloated US military as a combination international police force/meals on wheels/political bludgeon that it has become.  We could have a strong national defense even if we cut military spending 80% (and I'm no long-haired maggot infested hippie peacenik, I spent 30-years in the US Army).

[libertarian4321]

Democrats (modern big government "liberals") hate us because we don't support wasteful "Robin Hood" social spending and wealth redistribution programs.

False. I was a registered Libertarian for the last 2 presidential election cycles, I voted for Nader in '08, and for Gary Johnson in '12. I consider myself a social libertarian, against the drug war, against the NSA's defacement of the Bill of Rights, against the Patriot Act, etc.

So let me see if I understand you correctly.  You are/were a registered Libertarian, but dislike Libertarians (and, while a Libertarian, voted for the Green Party)?  Okay, that sounds truthful and logical.

I can only imagine the twisted answer I'd get if I asked you to explain the "natural healthcare monopolies."

But oh, what the Hell, I'm feeling adventurous.  I'll bite.  Explain the "natural healthcare monopolies" to me.

[prof61820]

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.

""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."

That is kind of what "liberal" used to mean in the USA.  Classical liberals (like Jefferson) have almost nothing in common with big government socialist "liberals" of today.  Classical liberals essentially believe what modern day libertarians believe.

Libertarians support personal freedom, which includes many modern "liberal" causes like gay rights, pro choice, etc, plus a lot of freedom most modern big government liberals will not support (e.g. ending the insane War on Drugs).  Basically, when it comes to individual freedom, libertarians are far more progressive than modern big government liberals.

Republicans/conservatives hate us because we support individual freedoms (the right wing social conservatives really don't like that).  Oh yeah, Republicans also hate the fact that libertarians tend to vocally oppose STUPID WARS (e.g. Iraq).  Democrats (modern big government "liberals") hate us because we don't support wasteful "Robin Hood" social spending and wealth redistribution programs.  I guess when both the Dems and Reps don't like us, we libertarians must be doing something right :)

I think liberals in the US want a strong economy and see well regulated (not over regulated) capitalism, rather than laissez-faire capitalism, as the best way for a society to achieve this.  I think liberals also want a strong national defense to protect the nation (liberal presidents won the two world wars for the US) and also believe that staying active in global affairs is important and will save money in the long term if we avoid a third world war.  The best way to achieve this is not by borrowing and spending money on national defense as the "conservatives" have done or by hiding behind our borders as Libertarians advocate, but by creating a more egalitarian economy and national community that has fewer obstacles and broader participation.  Ultimately, this strong economy will create the economic basis for national defense and foreign policy.

My problem with Libertarians is that their "personal freedom" often means asking US citizens to participate in a rigged financial game.  Another way of looking at this, for example, is that Libertarians see nothing wrong with forcing a team of 10 year olds to play football against a college football team.   None of us would allow our 10 year olds into this type of rigged competition, however, that's exactly the type of economic competition Libertarians advocate.  It's patently unfair to ask persons to compete against others when we all know that money - and typically inherited money - is a huge factor in winning the competition.  This is simply not real competition.  If the US economy becomes too much of a rigged game solely based on money, many people will simply withdraw and we'll lose their talents and and their economic contributions.  This is very bad for both the economy and for our society.  I think that's why liberals advocate for public education and libraries, safety net programs, public transportation, and progressive taxation to produce a healthy economy and, ultimately, a strong national defense.

You do realize that the overwhelming majority of millionaires in this country, and the overwhelming majority  even of those on the Forbes 400 richest Americans inherited little or NONE of their wealth, right?  And yeah, I'm in that first group.

Yes, the children of the wealthy do have an advantage over the children of the poor and lower middle class (where I started out), but everyone in this country has a chance to become wealthy. 

It's not 100% fair, but it's for damned sure not the kind of impossible to win "rigged game" you portray in your ridiculous "football" comment (which, frankly, makes no sense at all).

BTW, we Libertarians support a strong national defense.  But they don't support using a bloated US military as a combination international police force/meals on wheels/political bludgeon that it has become.  We could have a strong national defense even if we cut military spending 80% (and I'm no long-haired maggot infested hippie peacenik, I spent 30-years in the US Army).

Thank you for your military service and congratulations on your financial success and doing it without an inheritance.  We have that in common - along with military service.  I didn't serve as long as you but I served long enough to learn about how and why the military leadership uses a single payer universal healthcare system for keeping the troops healthy and ready to fight.  It is still unclear to me why you think a Libertarian form of government would best serve the United States and how it would strengthen our nation?  Libertarians never seem to discuss national policy but seem more interested in cutting government for their own personal financial reasons.  While your at it, from the looks of your avatar, I am assuming that you're a christian.  I'm not sure how Libertarianism jibes with Jesus Christ's message of taking care of those less fortunate.  I know that you'll say that charity is personal and the government should have no role...I don't think that was Christ's message at all - especially if many don't contribute to the common good voluntarily or in a way to make an impact.

You do realize that college is much less affordable and attainable than when we were 18 and that pensions don't exist any more for the middle class or poor?  College costs are skyrocketing primarily as a result of government cuts to budgets to fuel tax cuts designed to benefit the wealthy much more than the poor or middle class.  You don't have this problem because of your military pension but parents with 401k's to fund simply can't afford to fund their childrens' college educations in the same manner as folks with pensions or inherited wealth.  And because most middle class Americans are in this boat, their children are likely to end up heavily in student loan debt (that can't be erased in bankruptcy by either the child or co-signing parent) if they attend college.

Libertarian politics seems like a convenient way to pull up the ladder to success once someone has achieved it - and the bootstrap Libertarians seem to have the worst memories or most twisted logic on how the government helped them achieve their own personal success.  For instance, you probably don't see your government pension as government assistance.  There's no difference between a military pension and social security  (other than you didn't pay into it personally,  you get your pension earlier and it's a lot larger).  I also think the Libertarian mentality is often based on a person's faulty assumption that nothing has changed since they were 18.  I don't think you understand how more egalitarian and easier it was for social advancement for US citizens coming of age from 1950-1990.

Keep in mind, that just because something is not impossible, that doesn't mean that it's not a rigged game.  If we can agree that a college education is the most vital tool for a US citizen to advance socially, $150,000 in student loan debt to obtain that degree is quickly approaching a rigged game for many Americans. 

Maybe I should have used 13 year olds playing football against a college team to demonstrate how things are rigged for the wealthy in this nation?  You tell me how rigged you think it is in favor of the wealthy and why perpetuating, promoting and expanding that is good for our national interests?

No one wants a bloated military but an 80% cut would probably mean a large reduction in your government pension (and I won't call this type of assistance bloat).  Be careful what you wish for.  Keep in mind that in 1932 WWI vets were chased out of Washington, DC when they asked for payment - before 1945 - on bonuses promised by a broke government.  Also, an 80% cut would not allow our nation to actively intervene overseas when a significant threat to US safety began to develop (I'm thinking of Hitler not Syria).

[CDP45]

I think liberal statism gives it's adherents false confidence when it equates government with charity. This is quite a fragile foundation morally and fiscally. How does an involuntary cut of your paycheck spent on programs you have no control over choosing equate to charity? Let alone when the very same government is causing untold hardships and deaths, and all of the funding coming from the same commingled funds?

How do you think Jesus Christ feels about Obama not pulling troops/contractors/mercenaries/advisors out of Iraq and Afghanistan when he has the power to do so? What about his power to immediately close Guantanamo? Or release all non-violent drug offenders? Or effectively legalize marajuana ?

[Annamal]

I think liberal statism gives it's adherents false confidence when it equates government with charity. This is quite a fragile foundation morally and fiscally. How does an involuntary cut of your paycheck spent on programs you have no control over choosing equate to charity? Let alone when the very same government is causing untold hardships and deaths, and all of the funding coming from the same commingled funds?

I say again, some of the most effective ( those that reduce the cost to society over-all) social programs are the ones least likely to be funded by the charitably minded (which is fine, those who do charity have specific causes and more power to them).

P.S Obama is far to the right of my current right-wing government

p.p.s. Liberal in the rest of the world means something very very different to the way USAians define it.

[CDP45]

I think liberal statism gives it's adherents false confidence when it equates government with charity. This is quite a fragile foundation morally and fiscally. How does an involuntary cut of your paycheck spent on programs you have no control over choosing equate to charity? Let alone when the very same government is causing untold hardships and deaths, and all of the funding coming from the same commingled funds?

I say again, some of the most effective ( those that reduce the cost to society over-all) social programs are the ones least likely to be funded by the charitably minded (which is fine, those who do charity have specific causes and more power to them).

P.S Obama is far to the right of my current right-wing government

p.p.s. Liberal in the rest of the world means something very very different to the way USAians define it.

Right, all those African governments are really charitable to their people. All the billions spent on charity there was just made-up. I wonder if people outside the USA give far less to charity because they think their taxes compensate for tithing?

[prof61820]

1. How does an involuntary cut of your paycheck

2.  spent on programs you have no control over choosing equate to charity?

3. Let alone when the very same government is causing untold hardships and deaths, and all of the funding coming from the same commingled funds?

4  How do you think Jesus Christ feels about Obama not pulling troops/contractors/mercenaries/advisors out of Iraq and Afghanistan when he has the power to do so? What about his power to immediately close Guantanamo? Or release all non-violent drug offenders? Or effectively legalize marajuana ?

I feel like this post deserves a response because it  is so foreign from my way of thinking but there is a strong current of this type of thought on here:

1.  Are you living in a nation run by a dictator?  If not, why are you whining like this?  Since you are banging on Obama, ironically for not acting like a dictator, I'll assume you live in the US.  Taxes are not involuntary, they are the result of a democratically elected government.  Why would you feel otherwise?  Also, why do you chose to continue to live in the US if your paycheck is being involuntarily raided?  Go find a Libertarian utopia somewhere in the world where you can prevent these type of raids.

2.  Puhlease, you have the power to vote, blog, donate and volunteer on political campaigns or run for office yourself with no fear of any repercussions.  You do have the power to impact how your tax dollars are spent.  The point you make is a classic first world problem that many people in the world literally kill for the right to participate in their government in this manner.   If you can't live with this system suggest a better one or do what MMM does and not worry (or complain) about it because it's beyond his control and focus on the things you can control.

3.  Please name a few.

4.  I don't agree with Obama on everything but Obama has made progress for a withdrawal in the middle east (a war in a vital region to the US that he didn't start), I agree that he should close Guantanamo but the Repubs just went bat shit when he freed an American prisoner of war recently (and Speaker Boehner has recently sued him for acting unilaterally to solve problems) so I can't even imagine the howling the Repubs would do if he closed Guantanamo, I think Congress is better equipped to address sentencing for non-violent drug offenders and the states are doing a pretty good job of legalizing marijuana on their own.

[prof61820]

I think liberal statism gives it's adherents false confidence when it equates government with charity. This is quite a fragile foundation morally and fiscally.

I don't understand this statement.  Can you elaborate or explain it in more detail?

[prof61820]

I wonder if people outside the USA give far less to charity because they think their taxes compensate for tithing?

Huh?  I'm not sure if you can call tithing charity because its something that a person feels that's necessary to participate in their religion.  Charity is something that you give voluntarily.  I think people feel that taxes are the most efficient way to address society's problems such as national defense, education, roads, healthcare, and care for the poor, sick and elderly, etc.

[CDP45]

I think liberal statism gives it's adherents false confidence when it equates government with charity. This is quite a fragile foundation morally and fiscally.

I don't understand this statement.  Can you elaborate or explain it in more detail?

Yes I can, but I feel this has gotten us pretty off-topic so I started a new thread here: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/what-is-liberal-statism/

[Annamal]

I think liberal statism gives it's adherents false confidence when it equates government with charity. This is quite a fragile foundation morally and fiscally. How does an involuntary cut of your paycheck spent on programs you have no control over choosing equate to charity? Let alone when the very same government is causing untold hardships and deaths, and all of the funding coming from the same commingled funds?

I say again, some of the most effective ( those that reduce the cost to society over-all) social programs are the ones least likely to be funded by the charitably minded (which is fine, those who do charity have specific causes and more power to them).

P.S Obama is far to the right of my current right-wing government

p.p.s. Liberal in the rest of the world means something very very different to the way USAians define it.

Right, all those African governments are really charitable to their people. All the billions spent on charity there was just made-up. I wonder if people outside the USA give far less to charity because they think their taxes compensate for tithing?

I'm not sure how this in any way answers any of my points, can you elaborate?

[lithy]

I wonder if people outside the USA give far less to charity because they think their taxes compensate for tithing?

Huh?  I'm not sure if you can call tithing charity because its something that a person feels that's necessary to participate in their religion.  Charity is something that you give voluntarily.  I think people feel that taxes are the most efficient way to address society's problems such as national defense, education, roads, healthcare, and care for the poor, sick and elderly, etc.

Tithing is involuntary but taxes are not?

Whoa.

[grantmeaname]

Paying taxes is something I feel is necessary to participate in my society.

/thread

[libertarian4321]

Paying taxes is something I feel is necessary to participate in my society.

/thread

No Libertarian I've ever known has ever said we should have no government or no taxes.

We do, however, believe that taxes could be a lot lower and that it would be beneficial to have less government. 

Some Libertarians will call for an end to the individual INCOME TAX (others will simply ask to simplify it and reduce it), but please remember that the individual income tax is only one of thousands of fees and taxes used by the Federal government to collect revenues. 

Less government, lower taxes, more freedom.

[libertarian4321]

Thank you for your military service and congratulations on your financial success and doing it without an inheritance.  We have that in common - along with military service.  I didn't serve as long as you but I served long enough to learn about how and why the military leadership uses a single payer universal healthcare system for keeping the troops healthy and ready to fight.  It is still unclear to me why you think a Libertarian form of government would best serve the United States and how it would strengthen our nation?  Libertarians never seem to discuss national policy but seem more interested in cutting government for their own personal financial reasons.  While your at it, from the looks of your avatar, I am assuming that you're a christian.  I'm not sure how Libertarianism jibes with Jesus Christ's message of taking care of those less fortunate.  I know that you'll say that charity is personal and the government should have no role...I don't think that was Christ's message at all - especially if many don't contribute to the common good voluntarily or in a way to make an impact.

You do realize that college is much less affordable and attainable than when we were 18 and that pensions don't exist any more for the middle class or poor?  College costs are skyrocketing primarily as a result of government cuts to budgets to fuel tax cuts designed to benefit the wealthy much more than the poor or middle class.  You don't have this problem because of your military pension but parents with 401k's to fund simply can't afford to fund their childrens' college educations in the same manner as folks with pensions or inherited wealth.  And because most middle class Americans are in this boat, their children are likely to end up heavily in student loan debt (that can't be erased in bankruptcy by either the child or co-signing parent) if they attend college.

Libertarian politics seems like a convenient way to pull up the ladder to success once someone has achieved it - and the bootstrap Libertarians seem to have the worst memories or most twisted logic on how the government helped them achieve their own personal success.  For instance, you probably don't see your government pension as government assistance.  There's no difference between a military pension and social security  (other than you didn't pay into it personally,  you get your pension earlier and it's a lot larger).  I also think the Libertarian mentality is often based on a person's faulty assumption that nothing has changed since they were 18.  I don't think you understand how more egalitarian and easier it was for social advancement for US citizens coming of age from 1950-1990.

Keep in mind, that just because something is not impossible, that doesn't mean that it's not a rigged game.  If we can agree that a college education is the most vital tool for a US citizen to advance socially, $150,000 in student loan debt to obtain that degree is quickly approaching a rigged game for many Americans. 

Maybe I should have used 13 year olds playing football against a college team to demonstrate how things are rigged for the wealthy in this nation?  You tell me how rigged you think it is in favor of the wealthy and why perpetuating, promoting and expanding that is good for our national interests?

No one wants a bloated military but an 80% cut would probably mean a large reduction in your government pension (and I won't call this type of assistance bloat).  Be careful what you wish for.  Keep in mind that in 1932 WWI vets were chased out of Washington, DC when they asked for payment - before 1945 - on bonuses promised by a broke government.  Also, an 80% cut would not allow our nation to actively intervene overseas when a significant threat to US safety began to develop (I'm thinking of Hitler not Syria).

Libertarians never seem to discuss national policy but seem more interested in cutting government for their own personal financial reasons.

 

Most of the Libertarians I know tend toward being long winded and more than willing to discuss any political issue.

While your at it, from the looks of your avatar, I am assuming that you're a christian.  I'm not sure how Libertarianism jibes with Jesus Christ's message of taking care of those less fortunate.  I know that you'll say that charity is personal and the government should have no role...I don't think that was Christ's message at all - especially if many don't contribute to the common good voluntarily or in a way to make an impact.

Actually, the avatar was one of the generic ones available on the web site.  I think it might be some rock star, but I'm not sure.  I'm actually an atheist.

And yes, you are right.  I believe charity should be voluntary, not forced.  I'm a big supporter of a wide variety of charities.

The best thing about that is that I get to give my money to charities I CHOOSE.  And all of my money goes to charity (not just a small portion of it, as with taxes).  And it goes without saying that the charities I give to are VASTLY MORE EFFICIENT with my money than the Federal government. 

If I give a dollar to my local food bank, 97.5% of the money will go directly to helping the hungry ( http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=8743#.U8Y-GfldXw8 ).

If I give a dollar to the Feds, only a tiny portion will go to anything related to charity.  And, of course, much of that may go to "charity" that I don't support (as an atheist, I'm not a huge fan of my tax based charity going to "faith based initiatives," as you may well imagine).  And then the bureaucracy, in it's ridiculous inefficiency, will peel off roughly 20% of that to feed the bureaucratic beast.

So how much of my tax dollar ends up actually going to feed the hungry?  Probably well under 10%.

So, you see, I have a number of good reasons for preferring voluntary charity over forced, inefficient, government "charity."

You do realize that college is much less affordable and attainable than when we were 18 and that pensions don't exist any more for the middle class or poor?  College costs are skyrocketing primarily as a result of government cuts to budgets to fuel tax cuts designed to benefit the wealthy much more than the poor or middle class. 

Now this would actually lead to another of those long winded discussions :)

Some believe that the rise in college costs is not because of government cuts to college programs, but rather because of the wide availability of government grants and loans for college that have increased the demand for college.  Often the recipients of this government largess are marginal students who aren't college material, who often fail to complete their degree or pay back their loans.  More students, including bad students, fighting for a fairly static number of slots, leads to increasing college costs.

BTW, I'm not sure why there is so much wailing and gnashing of teeth about "cut backs" in government programs.  The Pell Grant is the largest Federal grant program.  According to the department of education's web site, the expenditures have MASSIVELY INCREASED in the most recent years for which they have data available (from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/fpg/funding.html ):

"FEDERAL PELL GRANT PROGRAM

Appropriations

Fiscal Year 2011: $41,674,180,000
Fiscal Year 2010: $21,772,000,000
Fiscal Year 2009 : $19,378,000,000
Fiscal Year 2008 : $16,256,000,000
Fiscal Year 2007 : $13,660,711,000 "

That's a 300+% INCREASE in the latest 5-year period for which the government has published data.

Even for the government, where a "cut" is almost always an increase, that's pretty extreme.

"You don't have this problem because of your military pension"

Actually, I don't have a military pension.  My time in the military was a combination of active (9 years), drilling reserves, inactive reserves, and IRR.  While I'm now in the retired reserve, I don't actually have enough points to "collect."

but parents with 401k's to fund simply can't afford to fund their childrens' college educations in the same manner as folks with pensions or inherited wealth.

I would argue that a 401K is actually better for parents who wish to fund their kids education.  One can dip into a 401K at any time, even while only in their 40s (the time when most people's kids are going to college).  A pension doesn't kick in until retirement, usually long after the kids have finished college.

Yes, it is better to be rich than middle class or poor.  That's pretty much a universal truth.

However, it doesn't mean that a kid who is really talented can't go to college.  Those with real academic talent can get scholarships that cover most, if not all, of their costs.  There are plenty of government funds available aside from loans and Pell grants.  For example, for those who are willing to do a little work in exchange for their schooling, there are plenty of ways to get Federal money for school- join the military (which has tons of ways to get a free or heavily subsidized education:  ROTC, the fantastic new GI Bill, the service academies, tuition assistance, long term civilian training), join the peace corps, Americorps, the National Health Service.  Many elite institutions (e.g. Harvard and the like) claim that if you are poor, and you get in, they'll see to it that your Harvard education costs no more than that of a state school (and for the very poor, its FREE).

The kids who have trouble significant finding money for college are those who 1) are mediocre or poor students and/or 2) aren't willing to put forth any sacrifice.

Libertarian politics seems like a convenient way to pull up the ladder to success once someone has achieved it - and the bootstrap Libertarians seem to have the worst memories or most twisted logic on how the government helped them achieve their own personal success.

Far from being twisted, my skills at logic are pretty good (it's kinda important in the engineering profession).

We Libertarians simply disagree as to the best way to run things.  This goes back to my charity discussion above.  I believe charity should be voluntary and efficient, not forced and inefficient.

Oh, I also fund a couple of small college scholarships every year at a local school in a low-income school district nearby.  Nothing exotic, but we provide enough to cover high achieving poor scholars to go to one of our local community colleges.  We started with one partial scholarship (about 15 years ago), then went to a full scholarship, then 2 as our finances improved.  Our idea was that we provide these kids with 2-years of community college, they work while they go to school, and save their money to transfer to a state school for their final 2-years. 

BTW, one does not need to have money to help kids.  There are plenty of opportunities to donate time as well (mentoring).  Most schools have local opportunities, or you can do "Big brothers, big sisters" or similar (I've never done this, but I hear it is a good program).  Since I'm an engineer, and my wife is a scientist, we use our skills to help organizations that help kids get interested in science and engineering.  We kind of differ on philosophy, though.  My wife likes working with the real sharp kids (usually from wealthy districts) who are clearly already going to elite science programs and probably going to win a Nobel prize with or without her help :).  I prefer to work with kids from the lower income schools who have often never even considered science or engineering for a career.

For instance, you probably don't see your government pension as government assistance.  There's no difference between a military pension and social security  (other than you didn't pay into it personally,  you get your pension earlier and it's a lot larger).

Well, I won't be getting a pension, nor do I need one.  However, I will add that military pensions are a HUGE drain on our national finances.  Back when the 30-year military pension was first introduced, our military was TINY (not many soldiers collected) and people died a lot younger (they collected for far less time), and the pensions were pretty meager. 

Today, we have people retiring from the military at age 38 (or even 33 with the 15-year retirement)

They, and their family, collect fat pensions for 30, 40, 50, 60 years.

To put the numbers in perspective, in 1914, there were about 6,000 people collecting military retirement pay.  Today, there are about 2,000,000 (and the benefits are much better).

That, in conjunction with the massive amount we spend on our bloated military, is not sustainable, even for a wealthy nation.

This, of course, does not include other military costs (VA, etc).

Keep in mind, that just because something is not impossible, that doesn't mean that it's not a rigged game.  If we can agree that a college education is the most vital tool for a US citizen to advance socially, $150,000 in student loan debt to obtain that degree is quickly approaching a rigged game for many Americans. 

Maybe I should have used 13 year olds playing football against a college team to demonstrate how things are rigged for the wealthy in this nation?  You tell me how rigged you think it is in favor of the wealthy and why perpetuating, promoting and expanding that is good for our national interests?

Of course the rich have an advantage.  They always have.  Did I have the "same" opportunities as Ted Kennedy's kids (my father was a mechanic)?  Of course not, but I did have a chance. 

Why did I succeed?  One word (and it ain't "government")- it's parents.  My parents were poor and uneducated, but they gave a damn and insisted that I succeed, and that is more important than all the government programs combined.

Unfortunately, we can't all have good parents.  Hence the reason I'm into the mentoring thing.

No one wants a bloated military but an 80% cut would probably mean a large reduction in your government pension (and I won't call this type of assistance bloat).

We don't even have to cut existing pensions.  Just cut the size of the current military.  I'm willing to debate.  Maybe just cut it by 50%.  Even that would cut costs immediately and in the future by a huge amount, while posing no "threat" to the USA.

Be careful what you wish for.  Keep in mind that in 1932 WWI vets were chased out of Washington, DC when they asked for payment - before 1945 - on bonuses promised by a broke government.

They were demanding a payment that they had not yet earned.  While I don't approve of the methods used to clear the camp, they should NOT have been paid that money until it was due. 

BTW, those bonuses WERE eventually paid early, in 1936 instead of 1945.

  Also, an 80% cut would not allow our nation to actively intervene overseas when a significant threat to US safety began to develop (I'm thinking of Hitler not Syria).

Our military, at the beginning of WW2, had small, professional military of 175,000 people (all services combined), no modern tanks (we were using WWI era FRENCH FT-17 tanks), and few modern aircraft.

I seem to recall that we did okay in WW2, intervening all over the world.  We are a wealthy nation, we are very capable of increasing the size of our military quickly (just as we did then).

BTW, an 80% cut in our active forces would leave us with about 300,000 active duty (plus a Hell of a lot of guard and reserves)- or roughly double the size we had at the beginning of WW2.  And, unlike WW2, where our equipment was obsolete crap (or non existent), our equipment today is the best in the world.

Not enough for military (mis)adventurism, perhaps.  But more than enough to defend the USA.

Remember when I said we Libertarians could be long winded?  Well, there you have it. :)

[johnhenry]

Would anyone believe me if I agreed with Hayek and said I'm an Old Whig?

For those interested, here's a great essay from economist and social philosopher F.A. Hayek.  It's hard to say it better than he said it.

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf

Here's an excerpt:

Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which
deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the
direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies
in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another
direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the
fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war
between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of
contemporary developments. But, though there is a need for a "brake on the vehicle of
progress,"I personally cannot be content with simply helping to apply the brake.
What the liberal must ask, first of all, is not how fast or how far we should move, but where we
should move. In fact, he differs much more from the collectivist radical of today than
does the conservative. While the last generally holds merely a mild and
moderate version of the prejudices of his time, the liberal today must more positively oppose some of the
basic conceptions which most conservatives share with the socialists.

[brewer12345]

I still think its all bullshit.

[grantmeaname]

No Libertarian I've ever known has ever said we should have no government or no taxes.

You've gotta be kidding me, right?

Right?

please remember that the individual income tax is only one of thousands of fees and taxes used by the Federal government to collect revenues.

I think I've got a pretty good handle on that, since it's my job. I wasn't referring solely to income taxes, you're the one who made that distinction.

[Daley]

No Libertarian I've ever known has ever said we should have no government or no taxes.

You've gotta be kidding me, right?

Right?

Countdown until we see the "No True Scotsman" argument in 5... 4... 3...

[libertarian4321]

No Libertarian I've ever known has ever said we should have no government or no taxes.

You've gotta be kidding me, right?

Right?

please remember that the individual income tax is only one of thousands of fees and taxes used by the Federal government to collect revenues.

I think I've got a pretty good handle on that, since it's my job. I wasn't referring solely to income taxes, you're the one who made that distinction.

First off, I wasn't replying to you, so why would you respond with the "I think I've got a pretty good handle" bit?  BTW, your comment did nothing to contradict my point.

BTW, congratulations on getting a job with the American IRS in London.  I didn't know they had a branch there.

Regarding your "You've got to be kidding" argument (if you can call it that).  What part of "No Libertarian I've ever known has ever said we should have no government or no taxes" are you unable to comprehend?

Linking forum posts from 2 guys I don't know (who, in those posts claim NEITHER to be Libertarian nor wanting anarchy) hardly negates my statement.

But what the Hell, I'll take this opportunity to educate you further anyway.

Neither of those posts said the author was a Libertarian, nor did either call for anarchy, it's clear that neither of those people is a big fan of government.  However, but not being a fan of the way the government works DOES NOT MAKE ONE AN ANARCHIST. 

Libertarians are not anarchists.  Anarchists are anarchists.  Libertarians support LIMITED government.  Surely you can understand that "no government" (anarchy) and our current bloated "nanny state" are not the only possible choices?

If you happen to find one example of someone who claims to be a Libertarian and an anarchist (and I say "claims" because he can't actually be both), that does not mean the Libertarian Party supports anarchy.

While you ponder that, take some time to read the Libertarian Party platform:  https://www.lp.org/files/2014_LP_Platform.pdf

Note that it refers frequently to the the responsibilities of the government to its citizens.  If Libertarian were calling for no government, they wouldn't be talking about the responsibilities of the government, would they?

You might also want to check out section 2.4, where it calls for the elimination of the INCOME TAX ONLY (not all sources of government revenue- taxes, fees, tariffs, etc)

And for the record, I've been a Libertarian for a long time (a bit more than 20 years).  I've held party office, I've been a delegate, I've run for office.  I have personally never met a Libertarian who called for anarchy, and I've met thousands of Libertarians.  Nor have I ever heard of any Libertarian Party candidate calling for anarchy.

Libertarians recognize that some level of government is necessary- the functions of government explicitly called for in the U.S. Constitution (Judiciary, Postal Service, Executive, Legislature, Military, etc).

Libertarians are NOT calling for an elimination of the Federal government and all of it's sources of funding.

So now that we've gotten past that bit of ridiculous nonsense, lets discuss what the size and role of the government should be...

[grantmeaname]

"No True Scotsman"

BTW, congratulations on getting a job with the American IRS in London.  I didn't know they had a branch there.

I don't work for the IRS, but I'm guessing you knew that. (And they do have an office here, but thanks for playing.)

[lithy]

Paying taxes is something I feel is necessary to participate in my society.

/thread

I'm glad for you.

I do too.

Your good feelings toward paying your taxes do not make them any less involuntary. 

(I am talking about the national income tax since the original post I quoted involved the use of these specific taxes to pay for "national defense, education, roads, healthcare, and care for the poor, sick and elderly, etc.".)

I never understand why the taxes thing is such a sticking point for self-described liberals/progressives/leftists/etc..  The federal government has the right to levy and enforce taxation under the enumerated powers of the Constitution.  They are not voluntary.  I can't pick and choose how much of my tax dollars I actually want to pay, if any, and then mete my dollars out to specific organizations.  You pay them all or you break the law.

Do you feel that the Selective Service is voluntary?

P.S. Sorry that your /thread command did not work.

[CDP45]

No Libertarian I've ever known has ever said we should have no government or no taxes.

You've gotta be kidding me, right?

Right?

please remember that the individual income tax is only one of thousands of fees and taxes used by the Federal government to collect revenues.

I think I've got a pretty good handle on that, since it's my job. I wasn't referring solely to income taxes, you're the one who made that distinction.

I'm not a libertarian, thanks for the plug though!

[grantmeaname]

I never understand why the taxes thing is such a sticking point for self-described liberals/progressives/leftists/etc..  The federal government has the right to levy and enforce taxation under the enumerated powers of the Constitution.

I don't think any 'self-described liberals/progressives/leftists/etc.' in this thread have had an issues with taxation - but maybe I'm missing something?

P.S. Sorry that your /thread command did not work.

It's not a command any more than a bold tag is a command. I take it you didn't much care for the joke.

[lithy]

I never understand why the taxes thing is such a sticking point for self-described liberals/progressives/leftists/etc..  The federal government has the right to levy and enforce taxation under the enumerated powers of the Constitution.

I don't think any 'self-described liberals/progressives/leftists/etc.' in this thread have had an issues with taxation - but maybe I'm missing something?

P.S. Sorry that your /thread command did not work.

It's not a command any more than a bold tag is a command. I take it you didn't much care for the joke.

So if I say taxes are involuntary and taken under threat of force.  You have no problem with that?  Good.

A bold tag is a command.

/joke

[Bob W]

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.

""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."

That is kind of what "liberal" used to mean in the USA.  Classical liberals (like Jefferson) have almost nothing in common with big government socialist "liberals" of today.  Classical liberals essentially believe what modern day libertarians believe.

Libertarians support personal freedom, which includes many modern "liberal" causes like gay rights, pro choice, etc, plus a lot of freedom most modern big government liberals will not support (e.g. ending the insane War on Drugs).  Basically, when it comes to individual freedom, libertarians are far more progressive than modern big government liberals.

Republicans/conservatives hate us because we support individual freedoms (the right wing social conservatives really don't like that).  Oh yeah, Republicans also hate the fact that libertarians tend to vocally oppose STUPID WARS (e.g. Iraq).  Democrats (modern big government "liberals") hate us because we don't support wasteful "Robin Hood" social spending and wealth redistribution programs.  I guess when both the Dems and Reps don't like us, we libertarians must be doing something right :)

I think liberals in the US want a strong economy and see well regulated (not over regulated) capitalism, rather than laissez-faire capitalism, as the best way for a society to achieve this.  I think liberals also want a strong national defense to protect the nation (liberal presidents won the two world wars for the US) and also believe that staying active in global affairs is important and will save money in the long term if we avoid a third world war.  The best way to achieve this is not by borrowing and spending money on national defense as the "conservatives" have done or by hiding behind our borders as Libertarians advocate, but by creating a more egalitarian economy and national community that has fewer obstacles and broader participation.  Ultimately, this strong economy will create the economic basis for national defense and foreign policy.

My problem with Libertarians is that their "personal freedom" often means asking US citizens to participate in a rigged financial game.  Another way of looking at this, for example, is that Libertarians see nothing wrong with forcing a team of 10 year olds to play football against a college football team.   None of us would allow our 10 year olds into this type of rigged competition, however, that's exactly the type of economic competition Libertarians advocate.  It's patently unfair to ask persons to compete against others when we all know that money - and typically inherited money - is a huge factor in winning the competition.  This is simply not real competition.  If the US economy becomes too much of a rigged game solely based on money, many people will simply withdraw and we'll lose their talents and and their economic contributions.  This is very bad for both the economy and for our society.  I think that's why liberals advocate for public education and libraries, safety net programs, public transportation, and progressive taxation to produce a healthy economy and, ultimately, a strong national defense.

You do realize that the overwhelming majority of millionaires in this country, and the overwhelming majority  even of those on the Forbes 400 richest Americans inherited little or NONE of their wealth, right?  And yeah, I'm in that first group.

Yes, the children of the wealthy do have an advantage over the children of the poor and lower middle class (where I started out), but everyone in this country has a chance to become wealthy. 

It's not 100% fair, but it's for damned sure not the kind of impossible to win "rigged game" you portray in your ridiculous "football" comment (which, frankly, makes no sense at all).

BTW, we Libertarians support a strong national defense.  But they don't support using a bloated US military as a combination international police force/meals on wheels/political bludgeon that it has become.  We could have a strong national defense even if we cut military spending 80% (and I'm no long-haired maggot infested hippie peacenik, I spent 30-years in the US Army).

From what I'm reading in your fantasies your a Libertarian.  In your reality you spent 30 years sucking at the Government tit and now that your retired and still sucking at the government tit,  you just think this whole military and taxation system is wrong?   

What you really are is a protax promilitary big government man.   My 3rd grade teacher taught me - "don't listen to what people say,  watch what they do."   

I know reality can be a pain sometime, but you have the worst case of life dismorphism I've seen lately.  Uncle Sam (us the tax payers) has been supporting you your entire life and will do so until you die.    We paid for your public school education,  we paid for your public health,   for 30 years we paid for everything in your life.   

I'm not sure counseling can help,  but you should consider it.

Or conversely,  you can always forgo your huge government pension and healthcare for life,  get a real job and pay us back all the money you pissed away for 30 years.   

[randymarsh]

[thepokercab]

To be fair Bob, I don't always agree with him, but libertarian has already laid out that he doesn't have a pension and gave extensive thoughts on this just a bit further up thread:

Well, I won't be getting a pension, nor do I need one.  However, I will add that military pensions are a HUGE drain on our national finances.  Back when the 30-year military pension was first introduced, our military was TINY (not many soldiers collected) and people died a lot younger (they collected for far less time), and the pensions were pretty meager. 

I'd recommend reading, and getting your facts straight first, before making an argument. That tends to make it more credible.  Just friendly advice..   

[Beric01]

As neither a libertarian nor a progressive, I'm also enjoying this thead.

[prof61820]

To be fair Bob, I don't always agree with him, but libertarian has already laid out that he doesn't have a pension and gave extensive thoughts on this just a bit further up thread:

Well, I won't be getting a pension, nor do I need one.  However, I will add that military pensions are a HUGE drain on our national finances.  Back when the 30-year military pension was first introduced, our military was TINY (not many soldiers collected) and people died a lot younger (they collected for far less time), and the pensions were pretty meager. 

I'd recommend reading, and getting your facts straight first, before making an argument. That tends to make it more credible.  Just friendly advice..

I'm not sure how you serve 30 years in the military and not draw a pension.  Am I missing something?

[Crushtheturtle]

I think liberal statism gives it's adherents false confidence when it equates government with charity. This is quite a fragile foundation morally and fiscally.

I don't understand this statement.  Can you elaborate or explain it in more detail?

If I may:

"It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.

People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint." -Penn Jillette


If you don't think your taxes are collected at the barrel of a gun, just stop paying for a while. See those cops at your door? Those aren't bananas in their holsters.

[grantmeaname]

You're at least the third person to produce a pithy comment about the you-have-to-pay-taxes-or-else-guns meme, and you didn't even offer any thinking alongside your packaged soundbite.

I understand what Jillette is saying, but I guess I'm too much of a pragmatist to believe that a society with no public social welfare would really be an improvement over a society with some social welfare paid for by a still startlingly low amount of tax. I don't know if that's where Matchewed, Daley, Guitarstv, khanjar, or others are coming from, but I'd rather go to bed at night knowing I live in a society that tries to keep everyone on its feet when it can afford to do so(and occasionally fails, to be clear) than live in an anarchy where at least I can know I get to keep five fifths of what I make instead of four. I don't evaluate it on 'moral credit' or for my ego, but on social efficiency, and I think that social welfare makes everyone better off.

[matchewed]

Pretty much. Society's success as a whole has been because of cooperation, not anarchy. I willingly pay taxes to benefit others and myself. Is it perfect? HAHAHHAHAHHAHhhahhahHh... nope. Am I willing to work with it rather champion it's destruction with the poor assumption it would make all ills in society go away? You betcha.

[J_V]

[/quote]

Thank you for your military service and congratulations on your financial success and doing it without an inheritance.  We have that in common - along with military service.  I didn't serve as long as you but I served long enough to learn about how and why the military leadership uses a single payer universal healthcare system for keeping the troops healthy and ready to fight.  It is still unclear to me why you think a Libertarian form of government would best serve the United States and how it would strengthen our nation?  Libertarians never seem to discuss national policy but seem more interested in cutting government for their own personal financial reasons.  While your at it, from the looks of your avatar, I am assuming that you're a christian.  I'm not sure how Libertarianism jibes with Jesus Christ's message of taking care of those less fortunate.  I know that you'll say that charity is personal and the government should have no role...I don't think that was Christ's message at all - especially if many don't contribute to the common good voluntarily or in a way to make an impact.

You do realize that college is much less affordable and attainable than when we were 18 and that pensions don't exist any more for the middle class or poor?  College costs are skyrocketing primarily as a result of government cuts to budgets to fuel tax cuts designed to benefit the wealthy much more than the poor or middle class.  You don't have this problem because of your military pension but parents with 401k's to fund simply can't afford to fund their childrens' college educations in the same manner as folks with pensions or inherited wealth.  And because most middle class Americans are in this boat, their children are likely to end up heavily in student loan debt (that can't be erased in bankruptcy by either the child or co-signing parent) if they attend college.

Libertarian politics seems like a convenient way to pull up the ladder to success once someone has achieved it - and the bootstrap Libertarians seem to have the worst memories or most twisted logic on how the government helped them achieve their own personal success.  For instance, you probably don't see your government pension as government assistance.  There's no difference between a military pension and social security  (other than you didn't pay into it personally,  you get your pension earlier and it's a lot larger).  I also think the Libertarian mentality is often based on a person's faulty assumption that nothing has changed since they were 18.  I don't think you understand how more egalitarian and easier it was for social advancement for US citizens coming of age from 1950-1990.

Keep in mind, that just because something is not impossible, that doesn't mean that it's not a rigged game.  If we can agree that a college education is the most vital tool for a US citizen to advance socially, $150,000 in student loan debt to obtain that degree is quickly approaching a rigged game for many Americans. 

Maybe I should have used 13 year olds playing football against a college team to demonstrate how things are rigged for the wealthy in this nation?  You tell me how rigged you think it is in favor of the wealthy and why perpetuating, promoting and expanding that is good for our national interests?

No one wants a bloated military but an 80% cut would probably mean a large reduction in your government pension (and I won't call this type of assistance bloat).  Be careful what you wish for.  Keep in mind that in 1932 WWI vets were chased out of Washington, DC when they asked for payment - before 1945 - on bonuses promised by a broke government.  Also, an 80% cut would not allow our nation to actively intervene overseas when a significant threat to US safety began to develop (I'm thinking of Hitler not Syria).
[/quote]

I wouldn't use the military's healthcare system as an example supporting single payer/universal. I've been in for 16 years and have had terrible experiences...took me 6 years of pain and medical visits before they would authorize an xray and mri for my back. They instead kept treating it as a muscular problem and giving me motrin. I've had other problems with them as did my family when they were seen by the military.  There is a reason why most military members refer to it as a medical hobby shop...Not to mention, they can inadvertently kill or maim military members and there is no possibility of compensation or lawsuits. Only when they screw up on dependents can the government be sued. My experience in the military is exactly why I'm against universal health care. My family switched out of the military system and they have no complaints.

[Annamal]

If you don't think your taxes are collected at the barrel of a gun, just stop paying for a while. See those cops at your door? Those aren't bananas in their holsters.

Heh, actually very few police men/women in my country ever carry a lethal weapon while doing their duty (there is a an armed offenders squad and the rumor is that most patrol cars have a shotgun locked down in the boot but I have never seen a police officer armed with anything more than a night stick/taser and there was a lot of controversy about tasers).

The nasty secret that no police officer wants you to think about is that they are vastly outnumbered by the general populace (it's why huge demonstrations make them so nervous), police hold their power through the idea of authority much more than by actual violence.

If you want to look at what happens when a populace genuinely disagrees with a tax, look at the reaction to the Poll tax in Thatcher's Britain.

[austin]

These questions were settled in the 19th century and before. This is only a debate online.

[Bob W]

To be fair Bob, I don't always agree with him, but libertarian has already laid out that he doesn't have a pension and gave extensive thoughts on this just a bit further up thread:

Well, I won't be getting a pension, nor do I need one.  However, I will add that military pensions are a HUGE drain on our national finances.  Back when the 30-year military pension was first introduced, our military was TINY (not many soldiers collected) and people died a lot younger (they collected for far less time), and the pensions were pretty meager. 

I'd recommend reading, and getting your facts straight first, before making an argument. That tends to make it more credible.  Just friendly advice..

Thanks for the advice!   I can't imagine someone who spent 30 years in the military not getting a pension?   That would be very unlikely and leads more so to the credibility question?   

I still will stick to my original thought that someone who spent their entire adult life supported by the government and working for the military industrial complex would need to be pretty damn convincing to make me believe they are libertarians.   

By the way,  I live in an area where military jets fly over my house everyday at around noon.   They do not do this for training as they could fly over unpopulated areas to train.   The reason they do so is to remind the population who is in charge.   They do not defend the borders as witnessed in Texas.   They are the guns of big government that keeps the populace oppressed and tax dollars flowing to DC. 

Please remember that it was the US military that killed the largest percentage of the US population in history (in a little thing called the
Civil War) and that more than half the US residents do not support an oppressive Washington based regime.   The Civil War was an act of the US Government by massive conscripted force to invade the sovereign CSA.   The CSA lawfully withdrew from the USA in large measure due to the unfair taxation placed upon them.   

In a Libertarian world not only would there be no massive oppressive military there would also be no federal taxes,  no IRS,  no NSA and no occupation of foreign soil.   Would there still be highways?   Who knows?   Would I be happier knowing that my government wasn't oppressive and spying on my every move?  Most definitely.

So I remain squarely in the Libertarian camp,  and if the two party system wasn't a rigged affair to begin with,   I would think that at least 30% of US voters would be voting Libertarian on a consistent basis. 

[milesdividendmd]

"The sovereign CSA!"  Ha!

Sounds like we have a Neo-Confederate in Libertarian's clothing....

What are your thought's on the voting right's act Mr Werner?

[austin]

The southern states withdrew from from the Union because of unfair taxation and...

and...

and...

: )

[Annamal]

So I remain squarely in the Libertarian camp,  and if the two party system wasn't a rigged affair to begin with,   I would think that at least 30% of US voters would be voting Libertarian on a consistent basis.

As I said before, New Zealand did effectively abolish the two party rigged system and libertarians still can not muster the 5% needed to get them into parliament (or even winning a single electorate seat which would accomplish the same thing).

The greens managed it, conservative christians managed it for a term (and a new conservative christian party might manage it this term...but probably only if their leader is willing to acknowledge that the moon landing is an actual event) and Kim Dotcom might even be able to swing it but no libertarian party has managed it.

The closest are the ACT party but they have tried very hard to capitalise on fear mongering and law and order (and were totally willing to sell out property development in Auckland in favour of nimbyism) so not libertarian as such.

P.S. Apparently there would be slavery in a Libertarian world...who knew