While we are not the lasseiz-faire market that I would like us to be, we are still a relatively free market in this country.

I disagree in principle with the control lawmakers exert over the oil industry, such as where they can drill and whether or not they can build another refinery. However, these restraints as well as taxation ultimately make a gallon of gas more expensive, thus hastening the markets response.

Even if the govenrment were not to excert pressure on the price of a gallon, we are currently seeing the economies of China and India heat up. These huge markets will dramatically increase the demand for energy. Oil as a source of energy (at it’s current level of production) will simply become too expensive within 10 years. It is in this timeframe that alternatives such as nano technology enhanced solar, hydrogen fuel cells, biofuels and God knows what will become dominant. (Alot of assumptions built into that last statement of course)

The premise I don’t accept is your last sentence – the market cannot respond with viable long term solutions very well – it is too hampered by regulation to have much incentive to do so. Status quo is the name of the game in Washington, D.C. and it radiates outward from there like a cancer.

So, if you accept the premise that oil funds terrorism, would it be moral to slap a “national defense tax” on every gallon sold if every penny went to our military? Wouldn’t this be kind of like a “toll” system for national defense? Those who need the most of their services paying the most for it?

I am not condoning such a scenario by the way…just a hypothetical question.

Personally, I rejoice everytime the price of gas rises. Energy independence is THE most critical long term National Defense issue in my opinion. The more expensive it gets, the sooner the market will respond with viable (hopefully domestic) alternatives.

Stan