Stop Holding My Hand

I'm a patriot, but some things about the U.S. government really make me angry. For example, urged by Al Gore, Congress passed a law in 1994 making it illegal to own toilets that actually work. All new buildings were only allowed to have "low flow" toilets, or toilets that used 1.6 gallons of water per flush. Previous standard toilets used 3.5 gallons of water. While this sounds good on the surface—everyone wants to conserve water—they brilliantly overlooked one important detail: "Do the low-flow toilets actually work?" But aside from that, they didn't consider an even more important question: "Does the U.S. government belong in citizen's bathrooms?"

Of course, the answer to both of these questions is "No!" The low-flow toilets work fine for #1, but for #2, they can require two or more flushes. If consumers have to flush a toilet three times compared to the one time with the old toilets, how is that saving water?

Instead of exercising prudence on the matter, and considering other alternatives, they recklessly made the old toilets illegal. That's right, if building a new dwelling, builders have to install low flow toilets no matter what. It's illegal to import or just transport the old toilets into the United States.

Some alternatives they failed to consider include allowing two phase toilets, taxing the installer of regular flow toilets or *gasp* just allowing the regular toilet owners pay higher water and sewage bills. No, I don't mean charge them more for their water and sewage. Just make them pay their regular monthly bill, which will naturally be higher because they use more water! (Two phase toilets would use less water (by default) for #1 but allow the user to switch to a "big push" mode that will use more water for solid waste.)

While there was some hope on the horizon regarding toilets, the government has once again experessed absolutely no faith in the American citizen. Late in 2007, Congress considered passing a bill that made incandescent bulbs illegal. While the law would gradually go into effect over a number of years, do we really need to make inefficient bulbs illegal? I really don't have a beef with compact fluorescent bulbs (CFs) (which really aren't bulbs at all, but nevermind that). But what if I were someone who was really fond of the Edison-esque incandescents? What if I designed my house around the idea that it would be lit by incandescents. This wouldn't be a problem if CFs provided the same color light as incandescents, but the problem is they don't. They're getting better, but the problem is CFs give off a bluer light than regular incandescents and, as everyone knows, everyone looks worse in blue light (this doesn't bother me because I look horrible in any color light).

Why not approach this issue with some prudence? No, let's charge forth like we did with the working toilet ban! Instead of considering alternatives, Congress decided to ban incandescent light bulbs altogether. They didn't even consider a more tempered approach, such as subsidizing the cost of CFs, something that SMUD does with great success. A great number of people would switch to CFs simply because they were cheaper. Eventually the incadescent bulb market would dry up, preventing any need to ban them. No, instead, we'll act like ogres and ban them outright. We want to be able to make people felons for not abiding by insipid laws! Hence, the incandescent bulb ban.

While I support banning substances that are intrisicly harmful (such as mercury, which, by the way, all CFs contain), why ban things as innocuous as toilets that work and incandescent light bulbs? Why not just let people bear the consequences of their choices, such as higher water and power bills? How can limiting a people's freedom help them?

This is just one example of the government assuming the ends justifies the means. Water is an issue for everyone, and so is energy. But we already have a system in place to encourage conservation of both. It's called "utility bills."

I can live with low-flow toilets and CFs. I'd rather not, but I can. But what really bothers me is considering what comes next. For example, I really like Mexican food. Unfortunately, it's not extremely healthy (I don't have it very often anyways). What's stopping the government from banning Mexican food, on the basis that it's not healthy? I already know that! But I like it, is it really necessary to treat me like a spoiled child? I can eat Mexican food once in a while without it killing me. Why assume that I'm going to eat it everyday for every meal and give myself a coronary within a year? I haven't done it yet, and neither have many other Mexican food aficionados.

Do I really think the government is going to ban Mexican food? No. Would I put it past them? No. But the issue is that the government is sticking its nose in too many places where it doesn't belong, where it doesn't need to be. Please, let's get back to the founding fathers ideals and keep America free.

Other blogs

• Hatrack River: Congress Is Taking Away Our Light Bulbs by Orson Scott Card. It says that he made the post on January 13, but it didn't actually appear on his site until January 25. I think he got the idea from my blog and is just ashamed to admit it. ; )