[henschman]

i agree with Newt on getting rid of the idiotic laws against free exploration for petroleum... enough has been said about this. but i disagree with the "loose the reserves to punish speculators" and sort of disagree with "encourage alternative energy," and i'll tell you why.

as for speculators, i hate it when the government targets a certain group of people (who aren't violating anyone's rights) with special discriminatory laws just because that group isn't popular with a lot of the public. It's a popular vote-buying strategy, but it isn't right. people have a right to trade in any commodity whatsoever, as long as there is a willing buyer and a willing seller. Nobody has a right to purchase a certain good for a certain price, like people act as if they have with regard to gasoline. in a free country, the price of goods is fixed by market forces, including commodity traders. Newt's idea on this is just another instance of the government trying to fight the inevitable forces of the market, because they don't like the direction they are headed. Anyway, we need our reserves in case of a real war. Our military is already stretched very thin with our presence in 130 countries and major conflicts in two. if somebody actually seriously attacked or threatened us, we would be screwed enough without a possible gas shortage that was caused by some politician's envy at peaceful commodity traders just trying to make a living through voluntary exchange.

admit it -- you people who are for outlawing or punishing commodity traders are just mad/envious because they are making money and you aren't, so you want the government to go out and "even the playing field" a little in your favor (and to hell with their liberty and property rights). it's the "soak the rich" policies from the 1930s all over again.

actually, this happens every time we go through tough economic times -- somebody tries to loot somebody else through the power of the state. it's just human nature -- our innate instinct to better ourselves, even at the expense of others. however, placing a check on that instinct to the extent that it violates the rights of others is the reason we have governments! unfortunately, the government ends up being an agent of the destruction of people's rights all to often, rather than the gurantor and protector of them (especially when it's the rights of a small, unpopular minority).

as for alternative energy, i say that i am against the government promoting it, but i only mean "active" promotion. there actually is a way they should be promoting technological advancement, and it is a wholly passive one -- get out of the way and let people invent whatever they think will make them money, without burdensome regulations or subsidies to whatever types of technology those "genius" central planners think are the best.

In the end, the solution to oil dependence will come naturally through the free market, if we let it. Due to the scarcity of the resource and the rapidly-escalating demand for it, oil will continue to rise in price naturally. As it does, the demand for a cheaper replacement will rise. As the demand for something rises, more and more people will look for a way to meet it (and make money). no one can say which form of alternative energy (or which combination of energy forms) will eventually be found to be the best and catch on -- which is why it is idiotic for the arrogant central planner bureaucrats in Washington to sit there and think they know what industries should be subsidized and in what amounts/proportions. it is well-known that if you subsidize one thing, you harm its competitors. by subsidizing ethanol production, the government might be dooming an alternate technology that could have been much more promising, or delaying the development of ethanol production technology by artificially keeping it more economical than gasoline (maybe with some advances, it would be cheaper to produce than gasoline without any subsidies?).

Like with most things, the the government screws things up more than it helps when it gets involved with scientific research and economics. Just keep them out, and we will be fine. also, we will be obeying our Constitution, which doesn't give the federal government any power to promote technological advancement (other than by issuing patents).