Germany lost World War I because it ran out of resources. As a consequence, enough of its citizens listened when the new national socialist workers' party presented a platform for what they called "Lebensraum," which was deemed to be essential for the survival of the nation. The fashionable geopolitics of the time persuaded not just the ordinary citizens but also enough of the intellectual elite to support the party in winning the elections of the early 1930s.

The electorate was well educated by one of the world's finest school systems, launched by Bismarck in the prior century. Why should they not be in favor of resource independence?

Well, history has shown them what that led to, an expansion to the east and the inevitable total destruction that followed. Since then, Germans have learned what the schools failed to teach them. Free international trade and pricing produce the rational allocation of all scarce resources, not government nor geopolitics.

U.S. public schools have a history going back to Bismarck. Do they teach enough of the lessons the Germans were taught the hard way? I doubt it.

Everybody seems to agree that energy independence is essential for our security. What does our government plan, using this power grab? To deliberately pay, in effect, more for energy than the going world market price is a concealed form of protectionism, which can lead to unforeseen reactions by our trading partners.

It is sold by the primitive notion that the money we spend on foreign oil is wasted when, in fact, it comes back to us paying for our profitable exports or gets invested in this country, thereby contributing to lower interest rates.

We should ask ourselves: What if every other country wanted energy independence? Would we understand that? If it is an absurd policy for them - why is it not for us?

H. R. Richner, Albany