The recent blackout this past August, in which a major portion of the
northeastern coast of North America was without power for several hours,
and some for a few days, was nothing short of astonishing. It engendered a
lot of debate about regulation versus market forces with regards to the
supplying and distribution of energy. Some are in favor of regulating the
energy industry, whereas others believe that market forces should be
allowed to dictate what happens. The argument between the two sides is an
age-old debate and goes all the way back to such famous â€" and diverse â€"
Plato, as a proponent of a strict class system, would have approved
of regulating the energy industry and thereby preventing blackouts from
occurring. According to Platonic beliefs, energy would be strictly meted
out according to the needs of each class. Just as a person's education was
considered complete when his maximum level compatible with his interest and
ability was achieved, so, too, would a given area's energy needs be
considered complete once the basic needs had been met. With Plato, no one
would get more or less energy then they absolutely needed. By regulating
the energy industry, according to Plato, it could be carefully managed and
controlled. The argument is best exemplified by thinking of how a dam
operates. A dam operates on the principle that water is carefully
controlled in order to meet the needs of a community.
Adam Smith, on the other hand, would have approved of letting market
forces control the energy industry. Smith, often called the father of
modern economics, believed in a system of government known as laissez-
faire. According to Smith, government should have as little as possible to
do with business. Rather, market forces should control the flow of goods
and services. Using the recent blackout as a model, Smith wo
...