Conservative fiscal policies are simply extensions of their belief that if people are given a chance to do what they want, and their view that people will always do the right thing if they are given a chance. I am on the other side and believe that regulation is necessary. Their fiscal policies, for the most part are grounded in pure greed and little else although they have a pile of nomenclature that, in their theory, explains the 'truth' of it all - it doesn't. All the rest, including the marvelous skill with political and fiscal whiz bang philosophies of some are just offshoots of the above and are, basically, blather.

For me its just basic stuff and I needn't rely on philosophical extensions of what is really quite simple.
I have been having this battle for literally years. The question seeems so simple. In religious terms one side believes in original sin and the other (Republican) does not. Original sin wins! The rest is all blather. Humans need regulation - without that there is only chaos. Everytime we have a Republican administration they eventually prove my point.

Oh, greed is a human trait but can also be seen in the animal kingdom. Dogs are a good example. If you have a dog, and the dog has a favorite toy, try and take it away - the dog will resist, its his/her's! Same with humans. the best dogs are those who are regulated. The worst are not. Same with humans. The problem with politics is that everybody seems to have a different view of the same thing. The progressives, for instance, are determined to have their way RIGHT NOW! Anybody who disagrees is the enemy and they rarely talk to anybody but fellow travelers. They believe in regulation but just go too far. There is a sweet spot, the problem is finding it and then finding agreement. That is, as far as I am concerned the real trick. The problem is in the agreement part - they are not real interested in that and the results, seen in history, are not good and you end up with stuff like Communism AND socialism (dictionary). There is a meme on this stuff that goes something like; "extremes have a habit of coming full circle and meeting in the middle where both sides are different only in nomenclature. One side is seriously regulated and the other is not yet both insist on their way or the highway. Neither really works.

The United States has been, so far, successful because of agreement. Without it we fail. Its really that simple. Our success is because we found middle ground. Extremes, on other side, are the danger and will eventually take us down and either side can do that - if they can.