Laissez Faire Today

The Laissez Faire Club Daily e-Letter

Freedom and Frugality

I am told there is an Italian saying that translates as “It is raining again… PIG OF A GOVERNMENT!” The saying makes me wince because I can see myself raising a fist and shaking it in reproach at the drizzling sky. I spend so much time railing against statism that I risk defining myself by what I oppose. I risk taking the state inside me and allowing it to filter my approach to life.

This is another reason to Go Galt: to reclaim an unfiltered life and carpe the heck out of every diem. One of the ways to do so is deceptively simple. For want of a better word, it is “frugality,” by which I mean something quite different than most people.

For centuries, the North American way has been for people to work harder and earn more to ensure that their children had a better life. For centuries, the strategy succeeded. But today’s children are more likely to be crushed by debt than to inherit their parents’ wealth. Today, hard work is discouraged and punished. It is discouraged by a maze of regulations that police home businesses, for example. It is punished by soaring taxes and disappearing retirement funds.

Meanwhile, the political elites maintain power by draining productivity from society and funneling it into entitlements for the unproductive. As white-hot printing presses increase both the currency supply and prices, the average working person reaches out for some control of his own economic future.

Many people turn to frugality in response to economic bad times. That is, they view it as a necessary, but bitter pill they are forced to swallow, but would rather spit out. Viewing frugality as a form of poverty, they are driven to it through desperation, rather than a desire to increase control over their lives. To them, frugality must be a dreary thing, but in my life, the contrary is true.

A few years ago, my view of frugality changed due to an obvious realization that I had never fully grasped before. Material goods cost money; money is acquired in exchange for my time; my time is literally my life. If X costs $100 and I make $25 an hour, then X costs me four hours of life. Or rather, it costs four hours plus whatever time is consumed by the transaction costs of making money, such as the time and expense of a commute.

This was a paradigm shift for me. I ceased viewing possessions in terms of money and saw them in terms of time. And my time is a scarce good. The hours available can sometimes feel boundless, and it is easy to fall into the trap of valuing each unit as if it were part of an infinite supply. Of course, it is not. There are only so many hours left for me to live.

With no morbidity, I apply a version of “marginal utility” to those hours. This economic law says that a person values the first unit of a thing according to its highest use and values subsequent units less. For example, if you have one unit of water, then you value it highly for staving off dehydration and death. If you have a large number of units, then you value the last one for watering a house plant. You would be willing to spend far more for the first unit than for the last. I try to view my hours as though each one were a first unit and, so, highly valuable.

When I look in my closet, many possessions now represent wasted time: a dress I never wear, shoes that go with nothing… I won’t waste more time reproaching myself, but I need to learn a lesson from that closet. I traded irreplaceable units of my life for possessions I do not value; I call these possessions “the useless shoes of life.” They are things that are neither necessary nor worth the time I traded to acquire them. Instead, I could have been reading or writing, laughing with friends or watching movies with my husband.

And then there are the purchases I will never regret: books, DVDs, my sporty little econocar, our farm, the ingredients for a superb meal. Those items provide a utility that is well worth the cost. And yes, I include pleasure as a “utility.” Pleasure is one of the most useful things in the world. It makes you spring out of bed with energy in the morning; it makes you fall asleep with a smile on your face at night. But even pleasure should be balanced against the cost in time and purchased at bargain rates, if possible.

People respond to the idea of possessions representing units of their lives in different ways.

Some people redouble their efforts to earn more and so reduce the amount of time that any one purchase represents. This is a return to the traditional American dream: Work hard and prosper economically. I wish these people the best, but their choice is not mine. At this point, I find it difficult to understand why anyone would spend years at a job they don’t enjoy in order to own a bigger home than they can use, especially since the upkeep absorbs more time and cash. The trade-off doesn’t make sense.

Also, for the political reasons mentioned earlier, I no longer believe the American dream is functioning.
My choice is to earn and spend less in order to control my own time and to avoid fueling the State through more taxes. I have called this choice “frugality,” but some people are more comfortable with the term “voluntary simplicity.” The point of such simplicity is not to save every possible penny. It is to ensure that your time and money are expended on your goals. Voluntary simplicity can be viewed as a “business plan” for getting the most out of life. Ask yourself what your goals are and what is necessary to get there. Of equal importance, ask what is not necessary.

Every person will have a different answer. Some of my choices, for example, seem to run counter to frugality. For one thing, I live on a 40-acre farm, not in a small apartment. The choice is odd only if you equate frugality with cheapness, however. If you equate it with spending your resources to achieve your own values, then the farm is eminently frugal. An apartment would be cheaper, but it would also impoverish my life: no dogs, no walks down a gravel road, no garden, no privacy…

I look forward to my garden each spring and to cooking complicated ethnic meals so that the aromas of the world flood my kitchen. I intend to travel and experience the places that fired my fantasies as a child; someday, I will know what the stars look like in Africa and how a jungle smells. Rather than diverting time into “useless shoes,” I intend to live.

That is, after all, the purpose of freedom.

Author Image for Wendy McElroy

Wendy McElroy

Wendy McElroy is Author, lecturer, and freelance writer, and a senior associate of the Laissez Faire Club.

You can support her work by reading her special message about the Club and then joining. For list of books, documentaries, and other publications, please click here.

  • Pingback: Redefine Christmas | AnthroVenture

  • Steve spellman

    This is wonderful. In an era of resenting the affluent, it is counter culture to choose to do without…and on ones own terms. I love, “that is, after all, the purpose of freedom.” Reminds of Von Moses in “liberalism”‘ that the idea of liberty does not dictate what you should do with that freedom.
    As previous comments allude to, perhaps making fewer dollars in income is an another counter culture response to confiscatory tax regimes. The truely free person would still live one’s own life, regardless the insanity of the world around us.
    God bless.

  • Vanmind

    Thanks, Wendy, and be joyful that the “…but I’d have to give up some of my conveniences” crowd is getting thinner by the day.

  • Pingback: Bookmarks for July 4th

  • Mikhail Dvortsov

    Wendy, this would be almost a funny piece if it was not so frustratingly confusing.
    Before putting on paper one argument for downshifting, that is – to deny the government of your taxes, you could have easily realized that such noble goal is simply utterly impractical for the millions of “the average working men”. It would require drastic changes in one’s life order – in some cases not just giving up on one’s job, but on one’s profession, possessions, residence, circle of friends and likely – one’ family.
    On the other hand avoiding “fueling the government through more taxes” is quite trivially a ubiquitous practice of every “responsible citizen” on earth both through tax avoidance and evasion. An additional call for action is kind of pointless here.

    The second part of your argument where you contrast staying on the job that one hates in order to own a bigger home with a voluntary earning/spending lessening is at the very least misleading. This is not how it works in life.
    Firstly, don’t kid yourself – there are plenty of people who work their asses off totally enjoying what they are doing in the same time wanting more money and more stuff. To them your argument is meaningless. Secondly, even when folks don’t like their work their voluntary “self-enslavement” is totally justified by their desire of whatever material possessions they dream of. (Who knows, there maybe even a few employees at Agora Financial who lead this “nonsensical” life.)
    Their trade-off is absolutely legit and there are no objective grounds to prefer your merry frugality to their pleasures of material ownership.

    Besides, while in one paragraph you advise for a voluntary simplification against “a voluntary complication” as poor life choice (discussed above) yet in another you describe that it is political conditions that force working men go niggardly.
    It seems that again in the first instance you have no case since in both your and their life-style versions “your time and money are expended on your goals” fundamentally in the same fashion.
    But in the second instance it is quite ridiculous and inconsiderate of you to promote a “pleasure of frugality” attitude when a “destitute of frugality” feeling did not arise from a poor choice but came as a reaction to socio-economic repression. The latter instances call for a revision of men’s political conditions, not of their psychology.
    It took me some measure of attentive reading to untangle these different conditions that you presented as one fluid content. That is not good too.

    Next, – surprise, surprise! – your frugality turned out to be not quite a frugality in any common sense of the term. A 40 acre farm as an illustration of downshifting? And Tucker praises this as an intelligent example to the youth (20% unemployed) that might find themselves “possessions dependent”? C’mon. I expect people from the same institution scratching each other’s backs but not at the expense of honest discovery.
    But this twist just underscores the same flaw in your logic: how is it that “frugality” that comes to be more costly “to achieve your own values” in Wendy’s case is somehow less irrational than putting up with the unloved job “to achieve your own values”?
    It seems that both choices are rational enough on their own merits. Both equally involve choosing bearing certain costs to gain certain benefits. We can conclude that one choice gives you no objectively simpler or more difficult life than another.

    Neither do I buy applying a theory of marginal utility to concept of time as a solid theoretical justification that Wendy’s life is now simplified for the better.
    You seem to have forgotten the cardinal principle of Austrian economics that human preferences are subjective. Now, from what I gathered from reading in the libertarian economics, no one has much to say how this principle specifically should affect a freedom-loving student’s understanding of her life or of society around us. This might explain why Wendy didn’t find an application for it in the analysis of her life either.
    Let me suggest that when we try to introspect and conjecture on our psyche, or soul, or subjectivity as such, as a concrete fact of the universe, the strange thing you might notice is that it has a quality of “nowhere to be found”. At best you might describe conscious self as a disappearing or dissipating singularity – it has no space to occupy and therefore no time to spend for travel. One’s subjectivity is not a thing and so doesn’t need time to operate. It functions not through movements but through non-material meanings – senses, feelings, impressions, ideas.
    The idea of time as marginal utility becomes handy only when a subject (non-thing) through its bodily movements calls things of the world his own. Only in such act of transference into the world a subject, a person becomes thing-like, sort of “equates” herself with a thing. Then her time may become scarce in such association as a person herself becomes a thing of a marginal utility.
    There is a psychological and life path danger here. If one thinks of her time only as a scarce resource she will experience a phenomenon known in psychotherapy as “prosecutory time” or scarcity of self-value. Then it don’t matter what you do – you’ll always feel unfulfilled, deprived and in a rat race whether your values are “noble” or instructed by a “barbaric American dream”. That’s a peculiar way to loose one’s freedom through no fault of the government.
    It is then a mistake to think of one’s unused shoes and dresses as representing a wasted time. It never was. The possession itself was good enough use and value. (Think of Umberto Echo’s library of unread books.)

    This is just a sketch of the subject matter that I believe is of crucial importance and utility – a sketch of psycho-economics. I like to call it para-economics. Hopefully you Wendy find some of these thoughts not without value.

  • GreenNeck

    Hello Wendy,
    First I want to commend you for this and your previous articles, which I truly enjoyed reading. As someone who’s ‘gone gulching’ for several years now I can totally relate to what you say.

    My own rationale for making that life choice was part anarchist, part libertarian, part survivalist and part environmentalist. For me this was not just a way to escape the grasp of big government, but also the race to the bottom into which much of the middle class in North America appears to be caught in. As you say, ‘voluntary simplicity’ means I gave up things like travel and dining out; but being independent for food, electricity and heating costs allows me to live decently on a few thousand dollars a year.

    With that said I’m afraid ‘gulching’ or ‘going Galt’ will only work for the individuals making that choice as long as only a tiny minority of us do it. If many millions were to do it to the point to strain the State’s revenues, Leviathan would not starve; he’d simply invent new ways to tax us. Or rather, re-invent the old ways. They could just increase property taxes, or resurrect a poll/head tax: you pay X dollars regardless of your income. Remember that the head tax is the oldest form of taxation; it was dreaded in the days of the Roman Empire. Even Margaret Thatcher, who should have known better, tried to resurrect it.

    If it comes to that, we’ll have to draw a line in the sand.

    Good luck, and enjoy every day.

  • Pingback: Pseudo Random News and Comment | Mortality Sucks