Arnold Kling describes it well -

Years from now, perhaps people will be saying that something big got started recently at the George Mason University department of economics....Once upon a time, "We, the people" was the preamble to a charter that reminded those in government of the limitations on the power granted to them. In today's political discourse, "we" is more often the preamble to something like a call for an involuntary collective health system.

If you want to be a Masonomist, you have to lose the we.

I'll include a few select excerpts from what I hope will, one day, become a seminal article;   the murky definition of "we" is certainly one of the core nuggets that Kling latches onto -

... I should emphasize that "lose the we" does not mean that one should be selfish or uncompassionate or uncaring. Instead, it means that you should channel your impulse to do good by actually doing good. Saying we and advocating government policy is instead a way of feeling good. It is an arrogant, demagogic pose.

...Masonomics worries much more about government failure than market failure. Governments do not face competitive pressure. They are immune from the "creative destruction" of entrepreneurial innovation. In the market, ineffective firms go out of business. In government, ineffective programs develop powerful constituent groups with a stake in their perpetuation.

...Although Masonomics has no pretensions to be over the average person's head, Masonomists are reluctant to concede anything to popular opinion. For example, Bryan Caplan's book describes the economically ignorant voting public as a menace. As consumers, ordinary people have sufficient incentive to learn what is best for them. As voters, they do not.

I'll try to boil it down into a few maxim's that work well for me -

1. Markets are Best -- they work well, but not necessarily always;   still, they don't need to be "perfect" in order to be the best choice.   As I'm fond of pointing out on the blog, many of life's choices aren't between "good" and "bad" but rather, between "bad" and "worse"
2. Creative Destruction is Central -- Like Schumpeter, Hayek, Mises and others, I think the best measure of how well a particular social organism is working is its level of creative destruction.   As a result, making a judgement from a static snapshot without understanding the system dynamics in the time domain is fatally flawed.   So, things like "income inequality" per se may not be issues given some of the underlying dynamics.
3. Minimally Invasive Policy -- When there's a failure, the best solution - to use a surgical analogy - is more akin to laparoscopic intervention than an artificial heart;  e.g. find ways to target the problem in the narrowest possible way while leaving the rest of the market to itself.  For example, if a good like Education isn't sufficiently universal, the answer is things like Government-funded vouchers rather than direct, Government run schools.
4. Government is just one instrument for collective action - and it's generally the worst ;  Public choice goes into great, analytical depth on the sausage factory that is governance but I'll instead emphasize Kling's point that govt has nealry zero creative destruction.   By contrast, civil society is filled with examples of organizations (Salvation Army, PTA, et. al.) that much more effectively spend your "donations" than the government.
5. Freedom is its own good - particularly in the negative rights sense;  given how badly & persistently the government screws up, the Precautionary Principle should be invoked to strongly bias us towards Freedom maximizing.