There are several reasons to reverse the ban on incandescent light bulbs, but here’s a good political one: It’s a rebuke to those who act not as public servants, but as arrogant overlords.
Secretary of Energy Commerce Steven Chu recently defended the ban. In comments quoted by the Wall Street Journal, he said, We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money.
Your, uhm, concern for my wallet is duly noted, Mr. Chu. And rejected.
“Waste” is in the eye of the beholder. We all have different tastes and preferences. Some people have more money than time; others have more time than money. There’s the do-it-yourself guy and the person who can’t be bothered with details. Safety, convenience, performance, ease of use, whatever, there are lots of factors that go into a consumer purchase, large or small. And we all rank these factors differently.
I think anyone who buys “People” magazine is wasting their money. Should government ban its sale?
We have at least one instance in which the top-down enforcement of “proper” opinions was met with open revolv. Some people thought that anyone who purchases a pint of beer was wasting money, and doing many other “bad things. So we tried Prohibition. It didn’t work out too tell.
Aesthetics and consumer preferences should be the business of no government official. If someone prefers the incandescent bulb, whether it’s for how he views its lighting quality, how quickly it turns on, or even for sheer cussedness, it’s no legitimate concern of anyone in government.
In effect, what Chu has done is assert his power not over simply what type of light bulb you buy, but what type of … anything you buy.
I suppose that within political circles there’s nothing extraordinary about what Chu said. But he did us a favor by stating the ruling class’s sentiment in such raw, simple–and arrogant–terms.
First published by the Michigan View.