What I recommended does not force a company to do anything.
"Forcing business (or even pressuring business)....
Dave, the part in parenthesis is still part of the sentence.
But no company has the right to decide what to do with land that belongs to the Federal Government.
At no point have I suggested that the Federal Government lacks the right to impose the lease restrictions or requirements which we have been discussing. My comments have focused instead on whether such restrictions or requirements are good or bad for society, which is why I wrote that it "reduces the total benefit to society."
The various companies can decide, each for themselves, how to maximize their profits within the structure of the lease.
That is true even when the mineral rights are leased from a private property owner. Government certainly has the power to impose such use restrictions on leases from private property owners, or to require all owners of property to use the land instead of leaving it fallow, or to use the land for agricultural purposes instead of any other purpose, and even require that the crops are planted the first day of January each year.
Now, every one of those things would be foolish and misguided and reduce the total benefit to society. But government could certainly do so. I would hope that if someone pointed out to you that such restrictions were misguided and reduced the total benefit to society you could get beyond the question of whether government has the power or authority to impose such restrictions.
Saying that the government should not have rules that affect the marketplace is meaningless, since the government, as the landowner, IS a part of the marketplace and any action, or for that matter any inaction, has an effect on the marketplace.
Dave, you spent time in the military, so I will use a military example. Saying that a military action should have as little effect as possible on civilian populations is meaningless, since the military, drawing its members from the civilian population and any military action, or for that matter inaction, therefore has an effect on the civilian population. And, therefore, Dresden and Hiroshima are fine and not even worth discussing.
Yes, The very existence of government effects the marketplace. A good government, which allows unrestricted marketplace choices, enforces contracts, prosecutes fraud, provides a stable currency, borders secure from military invasion, unrestricted international trade, a system of resolving disputes, rule of law, and an orderly transfer of power from one regime to another, effects the marketplace a great deal. Such a government allows the market to flourish, and that is certainly influencing the market.
That is quite difference from government actions which are designed to influence or produce a particular result, such as taxing the consumption of alcohol (though no other beverage or food) in order to discourage consumption of alcohol. Folks are still allowed to drink, though the goal is to get them to drink less.
You are right that to the greatest extent reasonable, government should reduce its role as a player in the marketplace, such as by selling government owned land, but that is not even close to the idea that government should decide how it wants to influence the market and then should set about doing so.
Ownership of property, even real estate, is not static, permanent or immutable. Not even for government. The United States has owned more land in the past, and it has owned less land in the past. You, seemingly, think that should not be a concern, despite the fact that it is a tremendous intrusion in the marketplace, and frequently results in government policies, or property use restrictions which, just like the one we are discussing, reduce the total benefit to society.