I am a libertarian. I am also an advocate for good financial decisions and money management.  I sometimes tie these two things together.  At the same time, I also have to wear two different hats at times.  Let me explain.

Let’s say that I am chatting with someone and they say something along these lines: “I just don’t have very much money.  I can pay my bills each month, but that is it.  If I take one nice vacation each year, I don’t really have anything left.  I’ve been stuck in the same job for a while.  It pays the bills (barely), but it isn’t fulfilling and I don’t know how to get off this treadmill.”

These types of stories are common in America.  Admittedly, they are first-world problems.  Someone in a third-world country would be thrilled to have a job that pays the bills and allows them some luxuries as well.  They would be even more thrilled if they only had to work that one job at about 40 hours per week.

In the U.S., I have said that we live in contradictory times.  “It was the best of times; it was the worst of times.”

We have luxuries that were unimaginable even a couple of decades ago.  Compared to a century ago, it doesn’t even compare.  We have transportation in the form of cars, airplanes, and other things.  We have electricity.  We have air conditioning.  We have refrigeration.  We have these little devices we carry around in our pocket in which we can almost instantly communicate with other people, as well as use it to look up billions of pieces of information.

At the same time, middle class America is struggling, and I don’t think libertarians should ignore this fact.  Most aren’t struggling to put food on the table.  Most have a roof over their head, although the tens of thousands of homeless people in Los Angeles alone run contrary to this.  It’s just that, compared to, say, the 1950s, we aren’t completely better off.  There have obviously been some cultural declines.  But even in terms of living standards, not everything is up.

I know that most of us would not trade places with someone in the 1950s or the 1970s.  They didn’t have smartphones and some other luxuries we enjoy today.  But the prototypical family seen in Leave it to Beaver is not completely off the mark. The husband went off to work, while the wife stayed home.  She raised the children to a large extent.  When the children went to school, she took care of the house and made sure that dinner was ready and the laundry was done.  This may sound like a stereotypical example, but it was the truth to a large degree.

The wife/ mother didn’t have to work.  The husband/ father could work and make enough income to support the whole family.  They had a house. They probably had one television set, although this was still somewhat of a luxury that was not widely available yet in the 1950s.  When a child got sick, the doctor would typically make a house visit, and it didn’t cost an arm and a leg.

In today’s world, there is a far greater percentage of women in the workforce.  I know that many women choose to work.  But even here, we have to realize that the choice is more of a tradeoff.  I believe there are many working mothers who would choose not to work, or not work full time, if their husband’s income was adequate to support the lifestyle they want.  Since the family wants their smartphones, and they want to be able to take one nice vacation per year, and they want a decent sized house, they send the wife/ mother to work.  Such a lifestyle often requires two working parents.

The problem is that we should not be faced with this.  Stated differently, we would not be faced with this if we had a relatively free market.

The reason we have to work more in order to enjoy the new luxuries of life is because government has made our lives so expensive.  If you add up government spending at the local, state, and federal levels, then about 40% of your income is being consumed (misallocated) by government. For some people, their share might be above 50%.  And that isn’t even counting all of the regulations that inhibit voluntary transactions especially in some areas such as medical care.

It shouldn’t be like this.  We should be able to enjoy a much greater living standard over time without having to send the second parent off to work.  In fact, we should be able to work less while still enjoying higher living standards.  We should be able to get our smartphones and big screen televisions without having to work more and without having bigger expenses in other areas.

Wearing Two Hats

This is where I sometimes have to wear two hats.  I want to sell people on libertarianism by pointing out that much of their hardship is because of government.

At the same time, I don’t want to give them the impression that they are virtually helpless in changing their situation because of the government.  In other words, I don’t want to give them an excuse for not bettering themselves.

In the example I used above, I want to point out that the struggling person would not be struggling so much if it weren’t for big government.  If the government, particularly at the federal level, were a fraction of its current size, then each individual would have more resources at their own disposal.  This is a libertarian argument.

But I would also want to point out that this should not be an excuse to not change.  If you aren’t saving any money, then you have to adjust at least one of two things.  You either need to make more money, or you need to spend less. There is also the combination of the two things, which is often the best remedy.

If you need to raise your income, then look outside of your current job to see if you are missing something.  Don’t sell yourself short.  Or find ways to serve your employer better so that you are seen as more valuable.  There is also an option of exploring entrepreneurship or some kind of gig on the side.

On the spending side, see if there are ways you can cut back.  This isn’t about deprivation so much as it is about prioritization. Figure out what really matters the most to you and focus on those things.  Go through your budget for one month and see if you are spending money on things that just aren’t really worth it to you.

Even though big government is holding us back, we shouldn’t use that as an excuse to not move ahead. We have to play with the cards we are dealt.  I don’t think you should do anything immoral.  As a libertarian, I don’t think you should be in a position where you feel compelled to advocate for big government.  But after that, you have to play ball in the ballpark that they’ve put you in, even if you don’t like everything about the ballpark.

In conclusion, sometimes it is important to wear two hats when advising people.  But it is ok to point out that you are wearing two hats.  For their own good, and for the good of society, they should advocate more liberty.  But at the same time, don’t use the current situation of big government as an excuse not to better your position in life.