They are called CONTRACTS - many of them run for years into the future - otherwise why do business with that supplier, when another one will?
Come now. If the income from the new deal exceeds the penalty for contract violation, it's still a good move. Beyond which, if you choose to argue that we should start your completely unregulated everything market right now, you're accepting all the regulation that got us to this point, including antitrust laws specifically designed, in part, to prevent an oil monopoly.
You are making the false assumption that China could out-bid EVERYONE ELSE, and VOID exisitng contracts. Not to mention if China could do so, they could accomplish the SAME THING RIGHT NOW by buying it all up (or even better, putting it under long-term contract) RIGHT AT THE EXPORTING SOURCE, and there is NOTHING the U.S. could do. Even for a straw man, this is looking pretty ragged...
Again, are we arguing principles or cases, here? You keep appealing to the idea that "yeah, it would be bad, but they wouldn't actually do that," or "look at their budget, they can't afford it," which has little bearing on the principle of the matter. It's a question of where they
should be able to buy up all the oil, and if not, what will prevent them from doing so. You haven't mentioned a principle that prevents it, aside from they can't currently afford it. What if they could? Would the government be justified in stepping in at that point?
If we're talking about cases, it's much more effective for China (or our "hypothetical antagonist," if you prefer, since you've got problems accepting whether China would actually do this) to buy only the oil that's being sold to the US. Buying it at the source would mean they'd have to buy up the entire world's oil supply, buying it here would mean they only had to buy up what other countries didn't.
Do you even have a CLUE how many different oil companies there are, and how HARD it is to get them to agree on anything? You might as well be concerned about all the air molecules rushing to the other side of your room, asphyxiating you...
There are so many oil companies, in part, because of federal antitrust law, which you believe ought not exist. Standard Oil made a pretty good run at complete control of the country's oil supply, and certainly controlled more than enough of it to threaten the national supply. Besides which, even given our current scenario, the trend in industry is towards consolidation.
If an oil company gets out of line, I can patronize their competitor. If the government gets out of line, there's nothing I can switch to. OF COURSE i don't trust elected officials - I think history will bear me out. Posting such an argument on a pro-gun board, I have to think you have a hidden agenda. Do you own stock in a keyboard manufacturer? Because you just caused a lot of soda and coffee to go into keyboards...
Not if there are no competitors. That's my whole point. As was demonstrated quite clearly in the 19th century in this country, absent regulation, capitalism tends to monopoly. A business controlling the entire supply of something is no better than the government controlling it.
I'm not saying you should trust government officials more than you trust business, I'm saying you shouldn't trust business any more than you trust the government. What on Earth makes you think that a bunch of unaccountable, faceless beaurocrats running the government are less trustworthy than a bunch of unaccountable, faceless beaurocrats running BigCo?
Any group of people past some size limit I've so far been unable to determine becomes a threat to liberty and the free market. The tendency in government is to consolidate power, and so is the tendency in business. I don't trust either of them. The only hope in my mind for your average citizen is to set one against the other, and hope that prevents either from getting too out of hand.
How come the "commerce clause" wasn't sufficient to regulate alcohol, so they had to have the 18th ammendmant? If they had to pass this to have the power to regulate alcohol, how is oil, (or drugs, for that matter,) ANY DIFFERENT?
Because "regulation" and "prohibition" don't mean the same thing, maybe? Or because the fed.gov could only have prevented the sale of alcohol across state lines, and they wanted to prevent its sale throughout the country? If the interstate commerce clause
doesn't grant the fed.gov the authority to regulate the sale of goods between states, then what do you imagine it does do? The wording seems pretty clear to me - "[t]o regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states" - at least as clear as "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
But me buying it from Exxon after it is ALREADY IN is NOT "commerce with a foriegn nation"! Plus how do you tell at the pump where the 87 octane no-lead came from? Is it 100% domestic, 100% foriegn, or some mix? Do refineries even KEEP that kind of record?
Of course it isn't. What makes you think I'm claiming it is? The feds clearly have no authority to regulate how much gas you buy at the pump. They have the authority to regulate how much oil a given state imports as a whole for the sake of ensuring CA doesn't prevent MT from getting any. The state may or may not have the authority to regulate the sale of oil within its borders, depending on its Constitution. Once again, though, this has nothing to do with the principle argument, which is whether or not
any regulation should take place other than the "invisible hand of the marketplace."
Supply and demand will provide all the regulation needed. Anything less, or else, and the only difference between us and Cuba is degree. As Thomas Jefferson once said, if we let Washington D.C. dictate reaping and sowing, we will soon want for bread.
You have failed to demonstrate that supply and demand will provide all the regulation necessary in cases of common resources. You have so far appealed to existing contract law (government regulated), to the goodwill of China and that they'd be smarter to do it at the source, anyway (which still doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't happen), the infeasiblity of actually monopolizing oil in the modern world (which situation exists, in part, because of federal laws regulating monopoly), and to the commerce clause not granting Congress the authority to regulate commerce between the states (because it didn't let them prohibit all alcohol within the states). The only point on principle you've introduced is that you can go to the oil company's competitor, which is all well and good.
Unless there is no competitor, of course. Or unless the nature of the good in question is such that everyone else's purchasing decisions influence yours (the water supply). Speaking of which, I'll hop back up to the top:
Water rights are an interesting issue to be sure. I know of no state that DOESN'T already define "ownership" of water - in Texas, the "Law of Capture" currently applies - that may change. Either way, SOMEONE owns the water. At the CITY level, I have no problem with the citizens effectively having a "municiple cooperative" to assure an adequate supply of potable water, BUT there are private enterprise models that will do the same. To a certain extent, thats why we HAVE cities and city government. That's still not a case for state or federal rationing of water. In my town, Lawton, OK, (and in most that I've ever lived in) private property owners are BANNED from having or using wells, to FORCE you to buy water from the city, which is a HUGE source of revenue. Obviously, I would MUCH prefer a free market environment.
Your very first sentence implies government regulation, insofar as government decides what "ownership" means. Defining "ownership" as "you can take so much water per year from the water table" is clear regulation. Defining "ownership" as you can take as much water as you want from the water table as long as you get it from your land" just means whoever gets there first gets all of it. Not to mention that traditional concepts of ownership imply the right to destroy what you own. If I own a bottle of water, there's no reason I shouldn't mix it with bleach, Drano, or whatever else I have around the house. Does "ownership" as defined by the government imply I can destroy the portion of the water table I own? If it does, how do you protect other people's ownership rights? If it doesn't, how is that not "regulation" of the water supply?
In your town, water is, it seems, over-regulated. I don't disagree. In our country, virtually everything is over-regulated (except flag burning and offensive art). That doesn't mean
regulation is bad, it means it's been
implemented crappily. Plenty of private businesses have done horrifying things to their employees, to the cities in which they operate, and occasionally to the economy as a whole. That doesn't mean private enterprise is bad, it means that it's failed occasionally.
What private enterprise model will do the same as an organization representative of the population? This is not a claim that there are none, I'm actually curious what sort of model would work.
Ultimately, it comes down to me not accepting absolutes.