California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, has proposed more legislation, this time to ban incandescent light bulbs. These are the lights bulbs that are used in most houses today.

What Mr. Levine wants us all to do is switch to fluorescent bulbs. Those are the spiral-shaped bulbs that cost more to buy but save money and energy in the long run.  Switching makes sense from a pocket book standpoint as well as an environmental standpoint. 

What grates against my free-market, free-choice mind is that Levine wants to pass legislation that bans a product and thereby removes it from the market place.  I could see it if it were a dangerous product.

Even though this product is not the best, it does fill the need for some applications.  But the government, in its fallible wisdom, will ensure that the citizens won’t make the “wrong choice”.  While the issue over a light bulb isn’t likely to spark a revolution with people marching in the streets, it is emblematic of the culture of extensive legislation that has infected so many politicians.  How people ever managed to make any decisions without government intervention may be the biggest mystery of the universe.  It also explains how some people cannot take care of themselves because the government has always done it for them.

The way to address this issue is to stay with long-used American values by educating the public on the use of light bulbs that save money over time. The way they save money is that they use less energy.  Along with the saved money for the consumer, the environment also wins as less energy means less negative impact on the environment.  Why heck, this education thing might catch on and people may even save money for the future for such things as retirement.

We don’t disagree on the goal. We just disagree on how to achieve it. 

In addition to curtailing freedom by banning a product, such a ban would make it impossible to buy the bulbs that best fit the need. While the more energy efficient fluorescent bulbs should become the standard, they do not fill the bill for all applications. 

I switched to fluorescent bulbs for most of my household uses, but I can’t use them in the shop. The light they put out is insufficient for my needs there.  To use fluorescents would require that I put in extra receptacles so that I could have more bulbs to illuminate the area.  How many fluorescent bulbs can I put in without using more energy to light the same space that one regular bulb lit?

This reminds me of an article I wrote quite some time ago when the government invaded my bathroom.  That move resulted in my installing new 1.6 gallon toilets. Yes they use less water per flush, however I have to flush multiple times to achieve the same result as the old toilet. The net result is more water used.  (See “Toilet Politics – The Inner Workings of Government.”)

So now I have two battle cries for less government, “stay out of my bathroom” and “keep your hands off my bulbs.”

I am an adult and I am capable of making rational decisions. If I am ignorant, then educate me, but don’t make the choice for me.  Doing so will eventually lead to a time when the only choice in the store will be one brand, the one chosen by the government.

Robert L. Griffard

Robert is owner and editor of http://newsbyus.com/