I'm not a Nobel prize winning economist, so don't expect a book sized dissertation full of proofs. I'm just going to summarize what I believe, why I believe it, and some of the policies and legislation implied by my beliefs. Then I'll point at some books and the economists who wrote them, some of whom did win Nobel prizes. Therefore, finding "proofs" is left to follow up reading.
Almost all government acts these days have economic consequences, most of them bad. A large majority of political issues have economic arguments attached to them. Unfortunately, because most pundits decide their policies first and then construct arguments to support them, most of those economic arguments are bogus.
Some economic issues are so big or have such significant non-economic arguments attached that they deserve their own topics. See Education, Taxes, and Social Security.
Capital can only be formed from surplus. What happens when voters and
politicians listen to demagogues who demonize anyone who earns or
owns "more than they need"?
Most people are confused about what "Free" markets are. Rather than
try to clean up the mess created by others' demagoguery, I am trying
to coin a new, more appropriate phrase: "Fair" market capitalism.
It's a much overused word. Such language abuse is a sign of sloppy
thinking. I can't resist pointing out some of the laziest assumptions
to creep into popular thought.
What?!? Such an oxymoron! This title that could make a newspaper editor's
head explode. However, if you can contain your aneurysm long enough
to read, then I will explain how it is better (and possible) to "join
the party" rather than burning down the house.
We libertarians want our free markets with their competition, yet there
are some functions that either should be or (against our advice) will
be handled by government. Can we have our cake and eat it too? Is
there a way that government can operate agencies without making them
monopolies, thereby generating some competitive economic Darwinism
within the bureaucracy?
Well, a few strategic pointers on how to start anyway. I developed
most of these thoughts while traveling in Russia back in '95, but
they're applicable in Iraq today. Come to think of it, they're probably
still applicable in Russia.
According to my "City Flyer", Vancouver is building several commercial ventures. Why is a city involved? I wrote to the mayor to remind him of some principles of free market capitalism.
I've read it cover to cover. If any book should be required reading
to receive a high school diploma in a free nation, this book should
be on the list. If elected to Congress, I'll try to put a copy into
every Representative's office, starting with my own.
Tough reading unless you get the Reader's Digest version, which preserves
the meaning but uses less complex sentence structure to deliver it.
The basic thesis is that if since central planning, by definition,
overrides private initiatives, force is inherent in the system. Therefore,
total control of an economy means totalitarian force by government.
An example of socialism at its best. Excerpt:
Two bulldozers linked by a long, strong chain could cut a swath through the brush while the third bulldozer could push over any trees resisting the chain. Using this method, three bulldozers could clear forty acres a day whereas working separately they could clear a total of fifteen acres. The land clearing crews needed a particularly strong chain for this method and ordered ship anchor chains. Initially, some administrator in London, unable to think of any use for a ship's anchor chain in the Tanganyikan bush, canceled the order...