I share your love of salt but again it is not really a necessity. In the long run we're all dead. Likewise for oil, we survived for millennia considering it a nuisance. And by the way, I've never dug into the ground to find oil, or have I ever collected salt out of sea-water. Even though I intensely desire both salt and oil, I usually trade some of my hard-earn cash for them. So far society has always provided me with plenty salt and oil. I could of course decide that my dependence on society is unbearable, and therefore I could try to become more energy independent. I could buy a generator, produce energy out of my garbage, install solar panels etc…This would cost a lot of money that I couldn't spend on other things. Notice also, that this other technology would also be provided to me by the out-side world. So I would simply be shifting dependency. Now if you want me to really produce all the oil and salt that I want by myself, from scratch. I'd have to cut my consumption to infinitesimal levels.

As I see it, we should only pursue energy independence if producing our own energy is the most economical way to meet our energy needs. But if producing our own energy were most economical, we'd already be doing that.

A goal of energy independence would thus imply we are willing to spend more for energy than we need to spend. Spending more for energy will not provide increased economic benefits to our nation. It's as simple as that to me.

Now, if you are arguing that we are already spending too much for oil because certain energy sources are off limits, that's fine. I am willing to join the fight to lift any restrictions on development of energy sources, in the U.S. or anywhere. But that's not at all the same thing as pursuing energy independence.

Government owns about one-third of all land in this country. That takes a lot of property out of private hands for discovering resources.

If I grew bananas, I could do this on my own private property (unless government owned much of the temperate areas where bananas could grow). Owning my own property would allow me to weigh if the opportunity cost was lower and more profitable than importing bananas.

Unfortunately with oil government holds the reins to whether or not companies are able to drill on government owned property. So measuring opportunity costs can be more difficult.

Ahhh, here´s the beauty of private property rights.

This is only a pipe dream, but I say the government sells land to the highest bidder. If an environmental group wants to out bid an oil company, then they’re able to sit on the tundra if they so desire (I´m sure if the environmentalist bought property with rich oil reserves under it, they would drill immediately though). Or if an oil company or private citizen desires to purchase the property, let´em, and they can drill or do something else with it.

Hey, Methinks

Do you think if Lenin had lived another 80-odd years that he'd have referred to them as "useful muirdiots"?

RE: your post of Aug 14, 2008 3:18:11 AM. I agree with everything you wrote in that post.

"If we can gain energy independence through the market, by eliminating drilling restrictions(which I support), solar energy, nuclear power and whatever other sources than it's well worth it. If it works in a free market than its fine."

That paragraph states the point I was trying to make better than I did. Thankyou.