Hans Hermann-Hoppe and his followers try to equate morality with low time preference. Consider, for instance, this quote from here:
"As such, decadence is antithetic to moral values, which are rooted in orientation towards long-term prosperity and happiness. Such values are the conceptual embodiment of low time preference, which is manifested in characteristics of thrift, diligence and long-term self improvement, all of which involve forgoing immediate satisfaction in anticipation of gains in the future."
Now, obviously, this is a pretty juvenile and debased sort of "moral philosophy," if one even wants to call it that: it's evil to enjoy yourself as much as possible now because if you hold off you'll be able to really, really enjoy yourself later! But it still amused me to learn, while listening to a lecture series on the High Middle Ages, that what Hoppe and his horde consider the essence of morality would, in the Middle Ages, have been considered positively wicked: worrying about the future showed a lack of faith in God. The followers of St. Francis of Assissi (I know, Hoppe-heads, he doesn't compare to St. Hans of Las Vegas, but he was OK!) went so far as to refuse to consider where they would head for the day when they got up in the morning. Instead, they would spin around until they fell over dizzy, and then head in whatever direction their head was pointing.
UPDATE: Oh, and the guy who wrote the piece I link to above obviously got his Rousseau from someone else's really bad summary; for instance, he repeats the old canard associating Rousseau with the idea of the "Noble Savage"! I guess his time preference was a little too high to read Rousseau for himself!
UPDATE II: Out of curiosity, I checked, and, in fact, as I suspected, Rothbard has the exact same "bad Cliff Notes" understanding of Rousseau as the author quoted above: 'Of the fourth, containing Burke’s views on Rousseau, Rothbard said that his opponent’s use of it only revealed "Professor Weston’s confusion on the nature of the libertarian tradition." Hostility to Rousseau proved little because an "individualist anarchist" would oppose him: "for the Vindication was not opposed to ‘civilized society’.... On the contrary, as I pointed out, Burke, in the libertarian tradition, champions ‘natural society’ as against the depredations of the State."' (Source.)
Of course, Rousseau was not at all opposed to civilized society, either, and you'd pretty much have to have not read him at all to think he was.
UPDATE III: Bob thinks this fellow I quote is just saying something like "Thrift is a virtue." No, Bob, there really are no virtues, except in that they help you have a whole lot of sensual indulgence later on:
"Moral virtues are the means for humans to attain luxury, prosperity and happiness. If these virtues dwindle in the presence of luxury, then this is cause for concern, not because these virtues are inherently valuable, but because they are the means of sustaining a good life in the future."