One of newly inaugurated (for a second time) president Donald Trump’s executive orders — “Unleashing American Energy” — promises to “safeguard the American people’s freedom to choose from a variety of goods and appliances, including but not limited to lightbulbs.”

Let us rejoice! Or at least ask — for my son — whether we can expect old-school incandescent lightbulbs to make a comeback.

While I’m personally a big fan of the newer LED bulbs because they use less electricity, produce less heat, and last longer than the incandescents I grew up with, my son asserts the superiority of incandescent light over LED light. The light is visually warmer, he says. It emits, in a word, “soul.”

Well, more power — pun intended — to him.

The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 required a minimum bulb efficiency of 45 lumens per watt. Incandescent bulbs don’t meet that standard, and were starting to fade into history by the time Trump announced during his first term, that the standard wouldn’t be enforced.

Then came Joe Biden. Via the US Department of Energy, he  banned the manufacture and sale of incandescent bulbs as of August 2023.

By that point, it was kind of difficult to get them anyway. My son paid what I considered scandalous prices to buy “new old stock” online before the ban went into effect.

If Trump’s administration follows through on the goals in the executive order, I honestly don’t expect many people to switch back from LED to incandescent … but that’s not really the point.

The point is that those who prefer one type of bulb over another should be free to buy the kind they prefer, and manufacturers/sellers should be free to serve market demand for whatever people are willing to throw money at.

The Biden administration didn’t, and the Trump administration won’t, buy the light bulbs that gets used in my house.

The Biden administration didn’t, and the Trump administration won’t, pay my electric bill.

My household policy is that I’m OK with my son putting two incandescent bulbs, rather than two LED bulbs, in his bedroom’s ceiling light — but that he has to buy the bulbs. I’ll cover the electric bill increase, but if I’m buying the bulbs, I’ll only spring for LEDs.

Your household policy may be different, and that’s fine. It’s your house. The only house the White House’s residents should be choosing the light bulbs for IS the White House.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On January 17, outgoing US president Joe Biden belatedly announced the ratification — in 2018 — of the 28th Amendment (the “Equal Rights Amendment”) to the US Constitution.

On January 20, incoming US president Donald Trump issued an executive order claiming that the 14th Amendment (and 8 U.S.C. 1401) no longer mean what they’ve always meant and have always been understood to mean, where that constitutional amendment and that federal law decree that all persons “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are US citizens.

While it’s refreshing to see one president acknowledge the rule of law vis a vis constitutional amendments, even ineffectually and at a late date, it seems far more likely that Trump’s repudiation of that law, and his claim to have unilaterally repealed the 14th Amendment, will prove the more effectual policy move, at least in the near term.

Not because Trump’s right and Biden’s wrong, mind you (the opposite happens to be the case in this instance), but because the US Constitution gets respected or ignored depending on whether those in power prefer to respect it or ignore it.

They respect it when it lets them do whatever they want to do, or at least doesn’t get in the way of whatever they want to do, especially when putting on a big show of respecting it makes for good PR.

They ignore it whenever it says they can’t have something they want, then hope the courts are willing to ignore it too.

Which brings me to my favorite Lysander Spooner quote (regular readers of my column will recognize it):

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

Depending on the Constitution to protect us from the US government in general, or from the president in particular, is a fool’s game.

It’s like waving the title to your Audi in a car-jacker’s face, believing he’ll put his pistol away and leave you alone once he sees it.

If Trump moves ahead with his anti-immigration nonsense (which, “birthright citizenship” aside, is constitutionally forbidden in its entirety by Article I, Section 9 and Amendment 10), appeals to the Constitution won’t help.

If we want to defend that particular element of freedom, it’s going to require our active physical resistance.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“If you vote for me,” Donald Trump told Libertarians at their national convention last May, “on day one, I will commute the sentence of Ross Ulbricht.”

Some of us believed him. Some didn’t. Some of us were willing to vote for him over that one issue. Some weren’t.

While it’s POSSIBLE that a few stray Libertarian votes put Trump over the top in what was actually a pretty close election, it seems unlikely. So that’s a promise Trump could plausibly kick out of just by saying he doesn’t think Libertarians held up their end of the deal.

More to the point, nobody expects politicians to keep promises, especially when those politicians will never have to seek election again.

That’s especially true of Trump, who doesn’t carefully curate his promises so as to keep them from conflicting with each other. At the same time he was promising to commute Ulbricht’s sentence, he was also promising to ask Congress to enact a federal death penalty law for drug dealers. Ulbricht was convicted of, among other things, distributing and conspiring to distribute narcotics, i.e. being a drug dealer.

So, don’t put a second mortgage on your home to make a big prediction market bet on the commutation actually happening.

But it COULD happen, and it SHOULD happen, and it happening would be a good thing for Ross Ulbricht, for his family, for his friends, and for America.

While Ulbricht was convicted “of” and “on” several charges, what he was actually convicted “for” was:

Running a web site that saved lives.

That web site, Silk Road, was the first major “darknet” market. It allowed its users to buy and sell things, including but not limited to drugs, anonymously and without government approval or permission. Its review system made it possible for drug buyers to identify differentiate reliable, honest drug sellers from unreliable, dishonest drug sellers.

In other words, due to Ross Ulbricht’s entreprenurial bent, fewer people got sick or died from overly strong heroin cut with fentanyl, fake MDMA (“Ecstasy”) compounded from N-Ethylpentylone and/or other far more dangerous chemicals, etc.

For the crimes of serving customers and saving lives, Ross Ulbricht was sentenced — after a farce of a kangaroo court “trial” — to life in federal prison without the possibility of parole.

Yes, he deserves a commutation.

He also deserves a pardon, an apology, a Presidential Medal of Freedom, and lavish financial compensation for his years in stir.

Whether he gets any of those things will, as of Monday, be up to a guy who’s indicated he plans to do at least one of them.

Hopefully Trump will deliver. If he does, he will, like Ulbricht himself, be owed the thanks of a grateful nation.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY