Brilliantly said. Thank you.

I too see the tyranny of businesses around me -- through cooperation with the government. Through unreasonable patents and copyright. Through regulatory capture. Through a million different means. And their enabler is the state. The bigger the state the more power you give to the well connected.

In any case, no, it would not be like use a fire hydrant. It would be like using a top-loading washing machine vs a HE front-loader. Which has pros and cons as well.

Blue Jeans require electric to be manufactured. They require pesticides, gasoline, oil, and many other materials in their production from cotton. I don't see under what measure you could suppose that those alleged excesses are worse than the excesses of incandescent lighting.

There are many reasons to choose incandescent lighting. Its truly instant-on, it has a load factor of zero, it can sustain frequent on/off cycles, less capital outlay, more variety of sizing, less risk when broken, less fragile, different sprectrum graphs (less peaky), no flicker, better cold performance, works recessed fixtures, dimmable, different failure modes. There some CFLs that try to address some of these differences, but they tend to be more pricey and still not perform as well for some metrics.

I haven't found Orwell's arguments very convincing on how restraint of government leads to tyranny of businesses in any case.

How about Blue Jeans? Should they be subject to prolifigate laws? If you have more than say, 14 pairs? I would consider more than that to be prolifigate. But I have absolutely no business using threat of violence (the law) to limit someone to only owning 14 pairs. Or, to say, you can't put Nylon into jeans because pantie hose are more necessary. It is arbitrary and its no way for a free people to live.

You have acknowledged there are a myriad of reasons for someone to choose incandescent lighting. You choose to use more CCFL and other energy efficient lighting and you wish to force your superior wisedom on others using the threat of violence. That's what it comes down to and thats why people are upset about it. I sincerely hope that you will reconsider the limits of your knowledge (and I will acknowledge that you are quite knowledgeable about a number of things!)

I confess that I prefer true but imperfect knowledge, even if it leaves much indetermined and unpredictable, to a pretence of exact knowledge that is likely to be false. - F.A Hayek

Yes and our law makers will form a committee like I outlined above. And they will pass laws in the interest of vested corporate interests. Its assine to label some one elses set of preferences as "prolifigate" which is why the don't tread on me crowd gets upset. This is exactly what Hayek is talking about in his Nobel speech The Pretence of Knowledge.

How are you going to feel when the law makers feel the amount of internet bandwidth you are using is prolifigate?

The price paid by the consumer does NOT assume an infinite supply. And who says who gets to determine what "profligate use" is? You? The "Committee of Equalization and Prolifigate Use"? Which, by the way, will be lobbied by the corporate interest that want their patented CCFL technologies to increase in demand?

I'm not sure where "rights" got involved in this. If you want to give people a "right" to an allotement of electricity, now you're just talking about general subsidies/welfare.

Watt-hours vs illumination produced is not an externality. Its an internality and it is reflected in the energy bill by the producer. There are many things to consider when purchasing a bulb -- its location, its life expectancy, its color, its flicker, load factor, etc. Maybe you live on a block where people are incapable of assessing these benefits for themselves, but around here people seem to be aware. My guess is that those around you are also aware, but you place different values on different properties.

If you see energy use (or production) in-and-of-itsself to be an evil, then you should regulate it there. I disagree.

The externalities of leaded gas are evident and high. Lead everywhere. Seems like as strawman to me...

What are the externalities you are proposing for indcascent light?

Or.. the government could respect us to determine when use of CCFL vs Indcascent is the best choice and just stay out of it.

Really any "prolifigate" energy consumption in the form of indcascent light will have no effect on you. Its also entirely possible that pushing CCFLs will lead to higher energy use as it makes light cheaper. Consider, before CCFLs I was more likely to leave my porch lights off, now I leave them on because of the cost-benefit analysis. Residential lighting only accounts for ~%2 of electricity usage in any case.

Its just part of a long line of "feel good" do-nothing legislation.

If you conside the aborted to be a human being, I'm pretty sure not being killed by your mother/doctor is a civil liberty.