That's all reasonable and a decent argument, but the real world isn't a closed system. Bare with my hypothical from my perspective of a small island nation.

We switch to a full free market model, government removes tarrifs and regulations and our import/export thrives, prices for importing fossil fuels drop and we continue cruising on the traditional fuel wave. But then as what consistently happens in history, trade negotiations break down due to ever present political tensions and then countries like my own that have little to no fossil fuels coming into the country? It would be like a on/off switch as everything breaks down. Obviously this is less of an issue for a large powerful resourced country, but as the quantity slowly dwindles for a valuable and necessary commodity, so does the power of the haves over the have nots increase exponentially. Eventually countries that do have large fuel deposits will have tremendous power over those who don't. Wouldn't it be a good, smart government that is able to allow judge the political climate and decide if intervention or tax payer spending is necessary to reduce the power countries have over it in these situations. The free market may be great financially, but it is firmly the role of the government to intervene where necessary to reduce the likely hood of future economic or political disaster and prepare the country, even if it takes tax payer funded investment. Isn't that why the US maintains high taxpayer defense spending? Because it values the balance of power that it maintains globally by said spending? Why can't other sectors also be seen the same Therefore it is a smart move for a nation to invest in independent energy sources, in independent food sources, whatever, so that they can be self sustainable when the shit hits the fan.