That is exactly in disagreement with what I said in those paragraphs. In history, governments have always, always, always becoming the master, not the servant of the people. Wealth is power. Every tyrant consolidates power by controlling the means to wealth.
By allowing the government to manipulate, rather than merely regulate markets we hand to the government the power over wealth creation. That is more than the keys to the treasury, it is the key to unlimited power over the people.
I guess I was not direct enough. Energy is becoming like air to human survival. We are not capable of burning a little fire outside our caves to stay warm and cook our food anymore - most of us would not survive that kind of transition and it wouldn't be long before the sheer number of humans would consume every toothpick available to burn.
So, I don't believe in the instances of "goods and services" vital to survival, like air and now energy, the rules of the road that have proven successful for bread, butter, vegetables, then mechanical bits and pieces and now electrical bits and pieces as you described them, apply. So, where your philosophy applies I have no issue - I agree. Where it doesn't apply I just don't think it applies. Such as in cases where the means for the common guy to provide for himself or choose to use the gasoline from an Exxon or Chevron or Texaco or Sunoco or Chavez Fuel pump does not exist. We have no ability to make a choice, and no one has the realistic ability to raise the capital to build an alternate infrastructure. Not even the existing oil companies by themselves in a decade or so. We are hostages to the system that free markets and innovation have created specifically because the free market was not adequately regulated. The start up costs for a realistic competitor or alternate are so high, it is impractical or unrealistic to assume the market forces in a free society and free market that have historically enabled another baker to get started if the demand for baked goods exceeded the local supply, or if a new kind of baked product was "invented" that brought joy and pleasure to the consumers. In the first case, I have already stated my case that the costs are too high for private citizens to "start up" an alternate solution by themselves as they can with a bakery. In the second case, there is no distinguishing effect when you turn the light on and the power was made by splitting an atom, or burning coal, natural gas or bunker oil. That makes it is hard to even distinguish one's new energy source when you use the existing infrastructure to deliver it to the consumer.
The point is those free market forces, in the situation that has evolved in the last 100 years is not conducive to being solved by free market forces. So, by default they don't apply.
Being a free society carries with it certain responsibilities to act reasonably. In the USA we are like monkey who learned to press the pleasure button continuously in some psychological test, until he stopped moving and lost interest in doing nearly anything a normal monkey does. We have not shown the collective characteristic of being reasonable. Our system begs for action to regulate certain behaviors because we have shown it is not within the range of responsibilities will accept to behave reasonably when it comes to energy consumption per capita.
This is all fine when it merely affects a minority of people who fail to act reasonably. When it affects us all, there needs to be some government action to prevent the affect from being seriously detrimental to the well being of the whole population. Serious energy shortages will have a detrimental effect on every aspect of American life, for all of us. So, it is incumbent on the government to regulate it rather than let our inability on a personal level to act reasonably.