Round III

2 things things here:

1.) I am shocked at how utterly simplistic you made "going back to stamps" seem. That's like me saying, "no problem if we lose a third of our oil supply, there are plenty of horses & buggies around." Hell, my current employer uses the exact same computer system you were familiar with during the Grand days, and I assure you when that thing goes down not a soul is rated nor a cheque updated until it is restored. And not because it isn't possible to "grab a pencil and paper", rather we are so accustomed to the rapid interface that such a "horse and buggy" back up doesn't even enter into the equation. Now imagine the same occurrence rampant throughout trading firms, hospitals, police stations, military, etc. Talk about grinding the economy and life as we know it to a halt, try losing the primary operating systems and effectively shutting down 88% of the nation's interface with work, family and life in general.

2.) That aside, a side by side comparison of oil & Windows was never my intention. I would concur that oil is the life blood, and that it checks more columns of "vitality" then does anything else within the world which is privately owned and publicly traded. That was never my point, this is:

"I think speculation pricing has a NEGATIVE effect on our economic and national security... even if it costs the Big Oil companies a percentage of their profits to see it done away with."

Your nuclear weapons developer example was good. It demonstrates what is the end extreme of my argument, and I get that. But here's my question, at what point does that latter part of your statement kick in? At what point does a privately owned and operated commodity, good or invention become so vital to the ill defined "national interests" that the "average" rules of free market enterprise (as we understand them) no longer apply?

Do you see what I'm driving at? What about the Manheim Flux Capacator? Do you know what that is? Neither do I, it's my ode to Star Trek fiction. But lets say it is the new much sought after "thing" that drives our economy. At what percentage of the economy must it effect before it becomes "too vital" for average rules of trading/speculation to apply (the phrase too big to fail is echoing here)? When do the rules that govern cattle futures lap over into the rules you'd advocate (& apparently Ronald Wilson Reagan) for oil? I ask sincerely. Must it effect 10% of the economy? 50%? 99%?

We can all agree that oil is within that 99.9% threshold, making it an easy one to peg for your "special regulations." But I would argue the burden for such advocacy is to show me the demarcation line, the "here and no further" point. Must it drop to 50%? 25? 5? You are keenly aware of slippery slopes, and I have conceded that nuclear weapons development is the extreme but inevitable end point in my quasi laisse faire advocation. So tell me, where is the end point in the other direction? What percentage of commerce must a "thing" effect before it falls under the special rules arrangement you advocate for oil and nukes (although we both agree on the latter)? Is there no danger of a slippery slope in that direction? When does private enterprise become too vital to "national interests" to remain wholly private, or at least governed by the same rules of other private endeavours?