The intellectual and practical case for separating government and electricity is strong. The historical record offers little support for “market failure”–quite the opposite. The laws of physics do not preclude private ownership and control of assets in this area unless you assume mandatory open access–Lynne Kiesling’s Ostrom trick–to make private operation of control areas problematic. [1]

So I labor against faux classical liberals/think tanks that offer suggestion after suggestion to try to make government planned ISO/RTO’s work. But the fix is in with the guilty who refuse to seriously consider a free market in electricity.

Two exchanges with my critics follow. One is with Michael Giberson, a “Right” central planner; the other with Robert Borlick, a Progressive Left central planner.

Michael Giberson Exchange

Giberson posted on his regulatory filing:

The DOJ Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force requested comments on how state and federal regulations act to impair competition.

Ed. note: The Great Texas Blackout four years ago triggered a social media debate that reconfirmed ‘classical liberal’ Lynne Kiesling as an advocate of centrally planned, highly regulated electricity. It also revealed a cadre of electricity planners who bristled at the argument that government failed, including Eric Schubert and Robert Borlick. The exchanges began a debate that led the author to write a free-market primer, Free Market Electricity, to resurrect the 1960s tradition of such names as Harold Demsetz, George Stigler, Milton Friedman, and Walter Primeaux.

Lynne Kiesling (above) came roaring out the gate on Blackout Day February 16, 2021. But ‘the queen of power markets‘ was wrong. The Electric Reliability Commission of Texas (ERCOT) was government–and at the center of the worst electricity crisis in history.…

“Global energy means a great deal to me. And climate change denialism is a major problem in both the libertarian and Republican parties.” (- M. Zwolinski)

Yesterday’s post, “Denialism? Zwolinski Punts on Climate Science, Policy (statism on parade),” raised the wrath of its subject, whose emotions and temper (and statism!) are now on display. In an open social media post, he intellectually cheated and got caught. And now he has made it worse.

“Global energy means a great deal to me” he stated to one and all. “And climate change denialism is a major problem in both the libertarian and Republican parties.” Wrong and wrong. Matt Zwolinski does not know much about energy or about the climate debate, it turns out. Yet he smeared a vast section of intellectuals and the public with a statement that is anything but free market, classical liberal, or intellectually respectful (he is an academic in pursuit of the truth, remember).…

“Something is very amiss in the ‘left-libertarian’ space where energy/climate activism is not considered authoritarian and a consumer/taxpayer issue for ‘bleeding heart libertarians’.”

Matt Zwolinski, an academic philosopher and “bleeding heart libertarian” [1] who likes to criticize classical liberalism, promoted an article by Shikha Sood Dalmia on why she, as a former libertarian, is voting for Kamala Harris and not Trump. [2]

The debate (screenshot below) turned toward authoritarianism on the Left side, mentioning climate/energy issues. [3] At this point I joined in.

Bradley: “So Kamala and the Far Left are not about authoritarianism by small and large measures—and with a smile? And does the global energy/climate issue (global governance vs. CO2) mean anything to you?”

Zwolinski: Global energy means a great deal to me. And climate change denialism is a major problem in both the libertarian and Republican parties.…