Introduction

This is a place for me to place various thoughts on random topics. I don't care if you read it. I will and I am doing it this way so that it will be easier to track and retrieve what I write.

The first problem that I would like to struggle with is determining when and to what extent government should be involved in solving a problem vis-a-vis the free market. The free market in this case being roughly defined as the recognition and protection of private property by society and the ability of the owners of private property to make and sell goods and services as they wish as well as buy and use goods as they wish.

One problem I always find in these debates is something I observed a long time ago about human nature. People believe that X is a legitimate government function if they use X on a regular basis. If they do not use X, people feel it is a wasteful subsidy for free-loaders and bureaucrats designed to do little more than take their money.

Another tendency I have noticed is the failure of people to "think outside the box" (forgive the expression) with regard to what services can be privatized and what can be put under government care and control. As much as people claim to hate politicians and think for the themselves, most would not dare to speak (or even think) of changing X from the private sector to the government or vice-versa without the idea first coming out of the mouth of some established political figure.

The human propensity to kiss the asses of power knows no bounds even when it does the smoocher no known good. Being on the "winning side" even if it is only in your own mind seems to be tantamount to people. We do fool ourselves a bit into think our society is free forum of ideas. Our propensity to turn to government to regulate things means that ultimately every issue is then solved by creating a strict dichotomy of ideas between one political part or the other.

People seem very uncomfortable if a third idea is produced in such discourse (or heaven forbid a compromise) because of a subconscious affliction that says that every controversy must be conservative against liberal, republican versus democrat. And of course, their must be a winner since this is a zero-sum game. People often don't know what to think until they have heard which side they are on according to their opinion leaders. This makes us little better than cult followers.

Irrespective of that, to me there seems to be a lack of good solid framework from which to operate to make the determination of what is best. Politicians do not elaborate defined principles, but eventually they would contradict themselves. That is, either the principles themselves would contain inherent contradictions or eventually the politicians principles would eventually yield a result they are uncomfortable with in a given situation (perhaps due to personal reasons).

I like to think I come from the "market solution is the best solution" school of thought, but I have never heard much in the way of a more defined set of principles that arise from this general maxim. I hope to flesh those out here. For example, what does this imply for "free trade" among nations? Are they any domestic goods or markets that should be protected? Should all barriers, including political barriers be brought down according to this principle? When should government regulate and to what extent?

I would like to start exploring this topic to see if I can draw out some postulates and theorems from this starting point to see if it is possible to develop a framework. This is important to me and should be important to others because it allows a better understanding of how a conclusion might be argued and reached when analyzing a particular topic. It also helps to frame the discussion better since I have noticed also the human tendency to arrive at the conclusion first and trace the rationalization back to what is best for them. As I pointed out above, this proclivity is apparent when people are deciding what government should pay for and what should be left to the market.

As an end result, a want a book of modern fiscal conservative principles almost in the form of Sun Tzu.