Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Why can't the bastards just leave us alone! (updated)

light-bulb-ban Another day, another ban. 

Since Navtej Singh was shot we've been hearing calls for bottle stores and their opening hours to be capped, banned and regulated into non-existence -- it was Mr Singh's own fault for being shot, say the wowsers, and bans on bottle stores and their opening hours are urgently needed.

This, it seems, is their idea of 'fighting crime.'

On Wednesday last week, we were told that using our cellphones while driving would be banned.  We're not to be trusted in our own cars, so the government's big stick is coming out, we've been told.

This, it seems, is their idea of 'road safety.'

And today we hear that the government is going to ban incandescent light bulbs from the end of next year, so if we want light in our homes we will have to use the mercury-filled spiral windings that have been struggling for consumer support -- and with good reason. 

This, it seems, is their answer to so called 'market failure' -- ie., consumers who show a dislike for products the wowsers insist they should be buying.

Nearly every day we're assaulted with would-be wowsers who know better than we do how to live our own lives, or who think they do.  Every day we hear a new bastard who wants to ban products or behaviour that for some twisted reason they just don't like. And nearly every second day we're assailed with a politician who's seen an opportunity for headlines by picking up one of the wowsers' favourite schemes to decrease our moral space.

And so it is that our freedoms shrink incrementally, one ban, one regulation, one imposition at a time.

It's often said that the end result of banning foolishness is that we'll end up with a nation of fools. It's increasingly obvious that it's the fools who have taken charge.

PS: I wonder if the wowsers have considered that the ban on light bulbs is symbolic of the wider wowserism?  After all, since cartoons often use a thought bubble of a cartoon to signify a good idea, what to do you think a ban on lightbulbs symbolises?

UPDATE 1: New links added.
UPDATE 2:  To celebrate the new light bulbs we're all going to be forced to use, here's Graham Parker's 'Mercury Poisoning.'

Labels: , ,


Blogger Julian said...

PC, According to the Minister - David Parker - these new bulbs are more "efficient" and "cheaper". If that is the case, then why is a law needed? The answer is obvious to all except the idiots who vote for political parties taking away our freedoms.

The government "blaming" the deceased liquor store owner for that fact that he was murdered is rather low. But then anything to evade the obvious.


6/17/2008 09:23:00 am  
Anonymous Sus said...

More stupidity that brings to mind that beautiful line from Reagan. (Yes? Think so).

If it moves, tax it.
If it continues to move, regulate it.
If it doesn't move, subsidise it.

6/17/2008 09:59:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This has got me boiling mad. From what I have read about these lightbulbs, if you accidentally drop one, you should evacuate the property and get a clean up gang in to remove the mercury vapour.

And just how do they propose that we use these ugly monstrosities in what most homes now have - recessed lighting.

Mrs Danvers

6/17/2008 10:08:00 am  
Blogger libertyscott said...

More of the "we know best, so shut up" approach. You're not entitled to choose to pay for more electricity for incandescent bulbs.

Maybe there will be a black market "psst wanna buy a bulb?"

6/17/2008 10:19:00 am  
Blogger PC said...

Yes, I can just see the bastards searching your suitcases to see if you're smuggling in decent light bulbs to put in your downlights.

6/17/2008 10:47:00 am  
Anonymous Sus said...

And reverting to the opening comment regarding Mr Singh, I hear that the poor woman run down yesterday in Manukau after being robbed - and right in front of her little 8 year-old, to boot - has now died. Three brutal, despicable acts resulting in three deaths within a few days (and miles) of each other.

Yes, brutal and despicable. The anti-smacking crusaders who scream 'brutality' at a tapped hand might think about it.

6/17/2008 12:58:00 pm  
Blogger Owen McShane said...

Me actually when describing Muldoon's approach to policy.

Also these light bulbs cannot be used in about 50% fof the fittings in buildings because although they generate less heat they need to run very cool and cannot be put into closed ceiling fittings and the like - as they have found in the UK. Changing over the fittings will cost scores of millions of dollars.

6/17/2008 03:00:00 pm  
Anonymous hanso said...

I quite like the spiral lightbulbs. I find them both more efficient, and asthetic, than the old ones.

That said, I am disgusted that the state even dare to regulate which kind of lightbulbs we can use. Libertarians, Unite!

6/17/2008 03:50:00 pm  
Blogger Luke H said...

Haha Hanso

< holds up fist with Libertarianz ring >

"Power of ... Free Market!"

6/17/2008 04:50:00 pm  
Blogger Ruth said...

Changing liquor laws will just penalise the victims - as the Indian community own most liquor outlets. Also all these people have cars - they'll just drive elsewhere. Let's address the P problem which is at root of most violent crime as John Key rightly says.


Those new bulbs are great - after much thought I decided to put them in the chandeliers - the candle bulbs only last a matter of weeks - and with about 10 bulbs in each chandelier I was constantly changing them at great cost. Also with great difficulty with the 11' stud.

The twirly bulbs look funky, I haven't had to change any in months, and they are a great conversation piece.

6/17/2008 06:19:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And reverting to the opening comment regarding Mr Singh, I hear that the poor woman run down yesterday in Manukau after being robbed - and right in front of her little 8 year-old, to boot - has now died. Three brutal, despicable acts resulting in three deaths within a few days (and miles) of each other.

Indeed. Why can't things like this happen to people like Helen Clark? Give us something to celebrate for a change.

6/17/2008 07:01:00 pm  
Anonymous LGM said...

I liked the incandescent bulbs because they run hot. In cold Auckland winter they add significant heat to the house. In summer I don't use them as much since the daylight goes far into the evenings and I don't need as much heat then. What is wrong with that?

Ah yes, the government... always the government.


6/18/2008 06:37:00 am  
Anonymous Gman said...

here's a link you will definately enjoy Peter:



6/18/2008 09:33:00 am  
Anonymous Sus said...

Cheers, Owen. However, I do remember Reagan making similar comments about US Treasury staff when I lived over there during his second presidency.

Perhaps he was quoting you? :)

6/18/2008 10:48:00 am  
Blogger Oswald Bastable said...

Guess what happens with low energy bulbs- people don't bother turning them off as quickly as incandescents- as they don't cost much to run!

6/21/2008 10:29:00 am  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home