From Cold War militarism, to the draft, to his new scheme for national gas vouchers, W.F. Buckley is always on the cutting-edge of conservative statism:
We will need to encourage alternative energy sources while adopting a voucher-based gas-distribution program. For the duration of the emergency, gas users would have access to magnetic debit cards in which were embedded a national quarterly target of per-consumer gasoline. Drivers whose allotted amount of gas didn’t meet their needs could buy part or all of someone else’s allotment. For the average driver, this distribution plan would not increase gasoline costs. A consumer would pay the same out-of-pocket cash per gallon, and the government wouldn’t get its hands on any more of the taxpayers’ dollars. It is a more efficient way of distributing energy because it employs market incentives to allow heavier gasoline users to get what they need without increasing overall consumption of energy.
(Thanks J. Cook)
{ 6 comments }
And, of course, there’s no possibility that this will create shortages or black markets in gasoline. Will this require an act of Congress to repeal the law of supply and demand?
I’m confused. If someone who needs more gas than the average has to purchase the vouchers from others, how is that more efficient than letting the people buy however much gas they need at the pump directly? I don’t see how this affects demand, it just makes it more of a hassle to get gas – increased time to deal with vouchers instead of paying at the pump, means increased cost to consumers.
Here’s another idea: let the free market in natural energy work, absent any State-accusations of price-gouging and collusion. Let oil companies build refineries in the US, and overturn the insane “environmental protections”. And allow the free market to determine the profitability of researching alternative energy-forms; presumeably, this will become more and more profitable as the supply of oil decreases and its price increases.
I agree with Buckley. Let’s have voucher-based gas-distribution program in order to buy gasoline. But let’s call these vouchers – Federal Reserve Notes. Duh…
Honey disconnect the phone
I’m back in the USSR
You don’t know how lucky you are, boy
Back in the US
Back in the US
Back in the USSR!
*whistles*
Buckely has lost it….
Here is another split between the “Libertarian/Rational” view of voluntary and free human interraction and the “Semi-Socialist” view where a little force, a little violence, a little coersion, a little pain and a little chaos are fine if we get some environmental benefit.
This “semi-socialist” scheme touted as the most economicly efficient argument for coersion has several huge faults. My four biggest are:
1. What if the consumer finds a sutstitute like coal or oil whose production and use has a greater negative impact on the environment.
or
1A. What if the consumer is using more gas as a substitute for the coal or oil?
2. What if the consumer is using the gas to produce equipment that allows larger numbers of uses to save gas? The the higher prices(less available gas) will hurt the total reduction in use of the gas.
3. Who will police black markets for the vouchers? The police will have to monitor more interractions requiring more police and some nice people to pay for them.
Comments on this entry are closed.