“President Bachmann will allow you to buy any light bulb you want.’’

-        Delusional presidential aspirant, Michele Bachman, presumably repeating something god told her

“America brought the incandescent light bulb into this world and we sure as hell can take it out of this world.”

-        Delusional man, Jay C. Ford, who naively thinks reason is a fine way to legislate

The man who lit the world at night.

America loves the light bulb, and in light (hah) of recent national debates, more specifically the incandescent light bulb. But who can blame us? The light bulb was modern man’s Prometheus moment. One device (and the complicated supporting electrical grid) made it possible to defy nature’s schedule. Night became light, and the days could be a bit brighter in a world with light bulbs. S,o ingenious was the bulb that it has become the symbol for when one has a great idea. The incandescent bulb has come to represent the genius of man and his constant search for that rare eureka moment. Yet, America now stands poised to begin a phase out of the least efficient incandescents, and many believe our government is going too far.

This fight over light is in many ways the perfect illustration for what ails us as a nation. In trying to wrap my head around why people would balk at such sensible policy it occurred to me that this is really about the myth of the freedom of the individual. America has long been the standard bearer for independent men and women and their right to autonomy. However, in reality it has been some time since a women or man could make a decision in a vacuum, without repercussions for the other 330 million Americans we share this land with. It is this new reality that so many in our country have yet to fully grasp. Our decisions are inextricably linked to the lives of everyone around us, and your right to do as you choose is limited by this fact, as much as it may bother us.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, compact- florescent light bulbs (CFL’s) could save the average household up to $105 dollars a year in energy savings. In total the move to phase out inefficient incandescent bulbs is projected to save Americans over 12.5 billion dollars annually in energy costs. If every American replaced just one incandescent with a fluorescent bulb it would prevent 90 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions from pouring into our skies. That is the equivalent of pulling 7.5 million vehicles off of our roads. Imagine the effect if all of your light bulbs were changed to fluorescents.

However, in light of all the good that would be done by adopting the more energy efficient bulb, over 75% of the lights in our country are still traditional incandescent bulbs. To address the matter Congress passed legislation in 2007 (subsequently signed by President Bush) aimed at phasing out the least effectual incandescent bulbs. Incandescent bulbs have, in fact, not been banned, as many are screaming from the rooftops. Instead, like many other appliances in America, we have simply put a baseline for efficiency on a manufactured good.

Just look at this little terrorist.

As technology has marched forward we have instituted energy efficiency standards on a myriad of products in order to reduce our use of scarce resources and save money for the consumer. The light bulb is over 130 years old and has had relatively few changes to the original design that Mr. Edison patented all that time ago. We are really very much overdue for a redesign.

So then why all the hubbub over this scheduled phase out?

The primary argument against the phase out has boiled down to one thing, namely that this is the government curtailing our freedoms. In a strict sense that can’t be disputed as it is undeniably a restriction on consumption choices brought about through legislation. However, we have no problem with the government curtailing my right to steal from my neighbor, pollute the Elizabeth River (most of us), or burn down my local convenience store. America seems to have a firm grasp on the concept that your freedom ends when your choices begin to negatively impact other Americans. Wasting finite resources on inefficient bulbs hurts others who need that energy and those in the future who will not have the same access to flowing mountains of coal. Coal burning, at the very least, leads to localized medical issues and at the worst is fueling manmade climate change that could wreak havoc on the lives of billions of people the world over. Needless to say it does not take a grand leap of imagination to show how our energy consumption habits become a burden on our fellow citizens, the nation, and the world at large.

Yet still, many congresswomen and men maintain their opposition to the new standards- harping on what they view as a backhanded insult to the collective intelligence of the American people. Rabble rouser Rep. Barton had the following to say about the measure: “We should let the marketplace decide. We should repeal this de facto ban, and we should let people decide if they want to buy a $6 light bulb or a 39 cent light bulb.”

The freedom to pee on someone's rug vs. The right to not be peed on. YOU decide.

We tried letting the marketplace decide with the result that over 75% of the nation still uses incandescents. We hoped the market would do the right thing with the auto industry as well, and still energy efficiency standards were needed to make change happen. The sad reality is that the market rarely makes the most responsible decisions, but it always makes the most selfish.

You do not have a right to waste energy disproportionately. You do not have a right to make choices that fuel the pouring of pollutants into our air and water. You do not have a right to harm others directly or indirectly, and the government as currently constituted does have the right to prevent you from doing any of these things.

John Stuart Mill, the father of Utilitarianism, most succinctly summarized the cornerstone of any reasonable society with his Harm Principle, which says the following:

“”The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”’

I only invoke this old dead man because Tea Partiers, far right conservatives, and misguided libertarians love to read this same sentence and give the words a completely different meaning. Call it a failure of imagination, but these groups struggle to piece together the causal relationship between pollution and harm. This civic shortsightedness seems to only recognize shooting your neighbor or breaking into his house and peeing on his carpet as harm. At the end of the day, though, this is a pretty straight forward rule folks, and I encourage people to offer a sensible reading of this that does endorse the government’s right to enforce energy standards.

Sure, we may be capable of making the right choice for our world and fellow inhabitants, but most often we don’t. In the end is maintaining the illusion of man as an island really worth the health of our children, our planet, and ourselves? I remember chaffing against the rules of my parents as a child and when I would question a restriction I would often get the same answer. Prove you are responsible enough to have this freedom and you can make your own choice.

We want our freedoms? Why don’t we step up and prove we deserve them in the first place.