- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,813
- Reaction score
- 2,233
- Location
- Huntsville, AL
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
It misses the point. You and he should consider the difference between a government bureaucrat deciding how much water your toilet can use or what kind of light bulb you must buy and your freedom to choose among a wide variety of goods and services. This is not about protecting the consumer from defective products but about restricting our choices by government fiat.LOLWhile FilmFestGuy's analogy may be a bit extreme .. I think you understand the point he is making. He knows the two aren't comparable, but that does not make the principle of the matter any less true.
Sigh. Never mind. Some people are simply not suited to be free.So Kellogg has such a right to manufacture such a product, yes or no?
No. Of course not. But the city council is within my easy reach. Tyranny is tyranny no matter where it originates. But tyranny at the lowest possible level can be dealt with. I can move. I can protest and make their lives miserable until they repeal their moronic rules. It is much harder to leave the US than it is to move to the next county.On a more serious note, are you really suggesting that such an act would be perfectly OK if a city council approved it?
I need to explain from an engineer’s POV. The ban only applies to two common sizes of standard incandescents; I think it’s the standard base 60w & 100w. I think halogen, longer life, incandescents are still legal since they a somewhat more efficient. What I like about the law is that it allows me to use a 60w incandescent, halogen and a little more expensive, where I need an incandescent There are scads of incandescents that are still legal. Going back to making 60w & 100w would take about a week or two. It’s not like making a drug or old computer part.Just want to point out that this bill was signed by Bush in 2007.
... Which means that if a repeal of this ban doesn't happen soon, which it doesn't look like one will, it won't matter if it happens at all, because once the companies have the technology down to make the more efficient light bulbs, it is unlikely that they will go back to making the less energy efficient light bulbs. And this means that the public won't be able to buy the old type of bulb anyway because they won't be being made.
A bad law is a bad law. The companies that make lighting are for it because the profit margins are very large. And we shall all be compelled to pay them their price. Ain't politics grand?Just want to point out that this bill was signed by Bush in 2007.
And, as another poster pointed out, the light bulb companies that make incandescent bulbs are for the current policy.
That is not bad if you are a subject. Perhaps you should consider it from a citizens point of view. You can buy whatever you want to buy with no busybody bureaucrat telling you what your choices are limited to.I need to explain from an engineer’s POV.
A bad law is a bad law. The companies that make lighting are for it because the profit margins are very large. And we shall all be compelled to pay them their price. Ain't politics grand?
Here is how they are meeting those goals.
Production of Light Bulbs in US Dwindles As Factories Close
The 2007 legislation which bans incandescent light bulbs by 2014 is manifesting disagreeable consequences in manufacturing. Most major lighting manufacturers have spent the last few years refocusing their operations toward a more energy efficient end. Unfortunately for factory workers in the US, energy efficient light bulbs construction is much more manual-labor intensive. The increase in cost causes manufacturers to look for cheaper ways to do business, and one of the first things to be done is usually moving manual labor jobs to China.
Outsourcing light bulbs jobs to China is ironic considering the promises made by our government that the move to energy efficient lighting would create more manufacturing jobs.
Production of Light Bulbs in US Dwindles As Factories Close
So you can feel good about buying a light bulb for $7.50 while your neighbor loses his job.
No. Of course not. But the city council is within my easy reach. Tyranny is tyranny no matter where it originates. But tyranny at the lowest possible level can be dealt with. I can move. I can protest and make their lives miserable until they repeal their moronic rules. It is much harder to leave the US than it is to move to the next county.
Or not.
First, I have only bought CFLs since 2005. I switched when I found out how much more energy efficient they are. Plus, they are less likely to break than incandescent bulbs, which is good for me, since I am a clutz.
Second, I currently buy no light bulbs because I just call up housing and tell them when my bulbs burn out and they send someone out to replace them.
No.
Perhaps you hear it that way. All I'm saying is, let me choose my own light bulb. Who's life it that taking? :lamo
Who's choice am I harming by using incandescent light bulbs? You pick the light bulb you want to use, and I'll do the same.
Real harmful.
I was able to go to Home Depot and buy a toilet that uses much less water for a very low price. It works great. We have a well and we have to use a water softener and I have to use potassium chloride in it. PoCl is now about $26 for 40lbs. Without the toilet law a refined design low water use toilet would be unavailable; and, a low water use toilet would be very expensive. Now I’m saving money because of the law. But I did lose some kind of trivial freedom; but, nothing like the freedom I lost when I was drafted into a stupid war in Vietnam.It misses the point. You and he should consider the difference between a government bureaucrat deciding how much water your toilet can use or what kind of light bulb you must buy and your freedom to choose among a wide variety of goods and services. This is not about protecting the consumer from defective products but about restricting our choices by government fiat.
Yours, and his, is the path to tyranny and oppression. It matters little that you cannot see it coming. The chains will be fitted to you whether you are duped, a willing accomplice, or just unsuited for liberty.
We switched a few years ago and I've only changed one bulb since I moved to Nashville in November, 2008.
Could you buy a toilet that uses 6 gallons per flush. If you wanted to? If not, why not?I was able to go to Home Depot and buy a toilet that uses much less water for a very low price. It works great.
So are you saying there was no demand for low flow toilets until some busybody bureaucrat decided that was the only kind you would be allowed to buy in the future? Do you have any other choices you would prefer that someone else make for you?Without the toilet law a refined design low water use toilet would be unavailable; and, a low water use toilet would be very expensive.
Well thank goodness that we have those fifty regulatory agencies and the half dozen extra-constitutional departments. Otherwise people who are too stupid to make their own choices in life would be left high and dry.Now I’m saving money because of the law.
And no doubt you are a democrat. Are you for or against a professional military?But I did lose some kind of trivial freedom; but, nothing like the freedom I lost when I was drafted into a stupid war in Vietnam.
Or not.
First, I have only bought CFLs since 2005. I switched when I found out how much more energy efficient they are. Plus, they are less likely to break than incandescent bulbs, which is good for me, since I am a clutz.
Second, I currently buy no light bulbs because I just call up housing and tell them when my bulbs burn out and they send someone out to replace them.
That is not bad if you are a subject. Perhaps you should consider it from a citizens point of view. You can buy whatever you want to buy with no busybody bureaucrat telling you what your choices are limited to.
Using said light bulb doesn't harm others - in fact it's up to you to prove it DOES harm others, which you have not done. Therefore, I can state emphatically that using said light bulb hurts no one.Hey, if you can provide an argument that supports the notion that using said light bulbs does not harm others, you will have a case
You want to prove a negative... well there's your problem right there.My point is that if a case can be brought that proves they aren't harmful, then it will all be a mute point
You are buying them.
You can marry whomever you would like to marry with no busybody Christian Conservative telling you what your choice is limited to.
When I can say that with the law to back me up, I'll start on your war against light bulb tyranny.
Heya, why not ban books, too? They've been here, like, BEFORE the bulb. Think of all the trees, dude.
Not really, unless you're saying through my taxes. But then again, I think a lot of them are specialty bulbs anyways. I don't know what kind they are.
Regardless, I don't care, because BAH pays for housing, which includes electricity, water, and light bulb replacement in full. It doesn't matter if we use a little electricity or a lot, nor does it matter if we never change out a light while we are here, because we don't see any change in how much money goes to housing due to those actions.
Now, if I had any say in what lights were used by housing, I would choose the CFLs.
This is actually a good point. New technology is causing book sales to fall all without the government interfering.
This is actually a good point. New technology is causing book sales to fall all without the government interfering.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?