> >But please understand that there is also political > disagreement. To some > >of us who consider ourselves capitalists, it's not proper to > try to change > >market behavior through legislation. > > "Proper" is odd choice of words here. I am a capitalist too, > but I would > say it is often not "effective" or "practical" to change > market behavior > through legislation. The market is usually better and faster.
While I try to avoid the political conversations on this board, it probably is on-topic to talk about an energy policy here, and that demands a political discussion. However, I feel more comfortable here just stating my opinions and letting it go. It's too easy to slide into a political debate. With regard to the words 'effective', 'practical', and 'proper', they all have political and ethical connotations. Politics is derived from ethics, and this is why I use the word 'proper'. The market is an ethical means of engaging in voluntary cooperation with other people. It is based on a premise of individual rights, and political equality. When Congress tries to change the way the market behaves, it can only do so by using force, and this, I believe, is improper, as is any type of action among people that is not voluntary in nature. So for me, proper is the correct word, if you subscribe to my ethical framework. It might be more difficult to see how the words 'effective' and 'practical' have ethical connotations, but when they are used, the question begs, "ethical to whom", and "practical for whom". For if we find a way to get something done more 'effectively' by using an act of Congress, then for some people, this type of action isn't 'effective' because they are being forced to act in ways that they would not naturally choose. So for me, the market is not only "effective" for most people, but also it's the only morally correct way for people to interact with each other, and hence, 'proper'. So be it. From my perspective, if we are looking for an energy policy, then it should only be done to maintain our national security, and it should be implemented in a way to simulate the inevitable future where oil is in much less supply. Hence, we shouldn't charge a $2 tax on oil consumption, but rather, an import fee on all oil, which can be increased in steady stages. This would make us less dependent on foreign oil, and ultimately completely independent from foreign oil without affecting the way a natural market would work in much scarcer times. The national oil companies may get richer in this process, from an increasing demand on domestic oil. Sincerely, Craig Haynie (Houston)
