I’ll try my best to offer conflicting interpretations while accepting that I potentially have less economic and Trekkie training.

Regarding Spock and the Tragedy of the Commons:
Vulcans are defined as being hyperrational, but that does not make any claims as to their level of selfishness. In fact their suppression of emotion indicates that they likely have fewer personal goals than most beings. Hence a rational choice for a vulcan may be what is best for their species in the long run rather than what is best for the individual. Objectively speaking what happens in the long term is more important. In such a case Vulcans would not experience a tragedy of commons because they would have internal incentives to preserve communal resources. Consider Douglas Hofstader’s concept of Superrationality.

Regarding running out of oil:
We aren’t arguing the science fiction aspect, so the current and future state of oil in our real world is irrelevant for our purposes. The episode’s claim is that we did run out of oil, with an insinuation that it would have been prudent to adjust for this earlier. Is your counter-point that it is impossible to run out of oil because prices would raise and usage would infinitely decrease leaving a small residual? This makes no sense as the last drops of oil would become so expensive nobody could afford to buy it, at which point the current owner of the oil would only derive value from it’s consumption.

But perhaps that is not what you are saying. Is the argument that it is ridiculous to care that oil is being used up because when the time comes for conserving and searching for alternatives the market will provide the necessary incentives? In that case is it not possible that preemptive conservation and research might lead to a greater number of possibilities for future growth? Just as individuals seek preventative care of their health, the society at large has an interest in considering it’s future path before it is forced to. The only reason incentives are necessary is to convince the individuals to get on board with the social mission. Whether this is socialism is morally right or not is not part of the debate, only that it can make economic sense. The knowledge of a future increase in the price of oil (being aware that it is “running out”) indicates an increase in it’s current perceived value. Much like the tragedy of the commons, perhaps that statement of T’Pol is that the price of oil in Cali should have been higher.

Regarding Ferengi:
This is perhaps your strongest point, so my criticisms will be correspondingly weaker, but I wanted to at least add a little ambiguity to the validity of your points.

Rule#1: Yes, this is in the literal sense not economically sound, but the concept that wealth should be accumulated is. Looked at this way, the rule may in fact mean, “never give money back, when it does not come with the promise of even more of their money.” Hence the rule might only mean that one should strive to have more money than everyone else, Ferengi and stardardly economic.

Rule#2: For humans Friendship=Profit, but not necessarily to the Ferengi.

Rule#27: If dishonest businessmen are often caught or fail, than perhaps the honest businessman is able to continue being dangerous and cause more long term harm. I’m not saying how because that’s not what you were arguing.

Rule#52: Tragedy of the Commons results from taking when one doesn’t have to ask.

I made this post not out of ideological interest (though I, as much as anyone, have a much stake in convincing myself of what I want to hear) but out of interest in applying economic theories at their maximum impartiality to the examples given.

The bit about Spock commenting that hunting a species to extinction is illogical was simply the writer tossing out his feel-good, altruistic deed-of-the-day because he/she thought hunting whales is wrong. I seriously doubt for a fleeting moment that the writer(s) were even remotely considering “tragedy of the commons” when they were writing that line. I have a mental picture of the writers and cast members high-fiving one another when Leonard Nimoy delivered that dialogue, because, “Spoke really told off the whale hunters!”

On the view of the Ferengi being ultra-capitalists and therefore basically evil, greedy, and corrupt (oily). The creators of the Ferengi race are undoubtedly portraying their own personal views on what capitalism is, like all the other Hollywood ‘elite’ that subscribe to the same. They all fail to realize they owe their creative success to the very establishment, capitalism, that they so love to demonize. Hypocrisy, all of it.

Finally, I would point out that Star Trek canon has often been undecided at to what type of economy the Star Trek universe utilizes to begin with. Early in the Next Gen series, I recall an episode where the Enterprise encounters a 21st Century Ship with a bunch of frozen humans on board. One of the humans, when thawed, turns out to be a capitalist who immediately wants to know the status of his stocks, portfolio, investments, etc. Picard tells him that basically humanity no longer uses money, having evolved beyond it. Maybe not in those exact words but the idea was the same. Later in Next Gen, and Deep Space 9, everyone seems to have an obsession with ‘gold pressed latinum’, whatever that is.