California’s War on Consumers

American Thinker ^ | 3 Sep, 2026 | Jim Cardoza

[MtnClimber]

There was a time when buying a light bulb did not require government permission. Customer demand dictated market choices. You walked into a store, examined the alternatives, considered price and quality, and bought the one you wanted. The manufacturer wanted to sell it. The merchant wanted to stock it. You wanted to buy it. Three voluntary parties agreed; nobody else’s rights were violated, and that was the end of the matter.

But that arrangement is incompatible with the agenda of California’s overlords.

Today, while shopping online, Californians routinely encounter a disturbing message: “This item cannot be shipped to your location.” Change the delivery address to Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, or another state, and suddenly the same perfectly ordinary product becomes available.

California has imposed restrictions against a growing number of appliances, light bulbs, faucets, showerheads, computers, televisions, air conditioners, pool equipment, gasoline containers, automotive products, and countless other ordinary goods. Energy efficiency, water consumption, emissions, chemical composition, and certification requirements have been deployed as the pretexts for these restrictions.

The premise of a free society is that individuals own themselves. They consequently possess the moral authority to make peaceful decisions concerning their own lives and property. The American government was designed to protect that freedom, not to restrict it.

If a Californian prefers a particular showerhead, air conditioner, or light bulb, why should a government bureaucrat stand in their way?

The answer is because they can. The people may not like it, but donors and lobbyists obviously do.

When consumers have liberty to choose, some may select a less-efficient appliance because it costs substantially less or prefer a particular light bulb because of its color, brightness, dimming characteristics, or longevity. Many want a higher-flow fixture simply because it works more efficiently, and most folks choose a gasoline-powered automobile because

---

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Society
KEYWORDS: leftism

[woodbutcher1963]

“gasoline containers”

There is an entire industry and multiple websites selling:

gas can replacement spouts

To replace those stupid spouts they have on all new gas cans.

[bert]

——Those laws tended to be written because some child drowned.——

These laws were written because greedy lawyers extracted so much money from anyone associated with the incident.

The law doesn’t protect children.

The law protects the owners from greedy lawyers

[US_MilitaryRules]

We try but the dem machine just prints up fake ballots and recounts them over and over!

[ansel12]

“”””The front doorway lights of my house use two incandescent bulbs wired in series.””””

A porch light is a perfect place for led bulbs, how many watts are your bulbs?

[Fledermaus]

And they wonder and blame others for higher prices.

[JeemBeau]

Do those spouts prevent evaporation of gasoline, and prevent ambient air from replacing the volume of gas dispensed?

You should post pictures of these Cali and non-Cali spouts.

[woodbutcher1963]

Do a search on the internet yourself

[fini]

"I want to buy a car without a catalytic converter, no turn signals, and without seatbelts!"

Turn signals-OK, as long as you use arm signals. Catalytic converter-OK, as long as it can pass emission tests (which can be done as long as the car is tuned properly). Seatbelts, OK, as long as society doesn't have to pay for medical treatment if you are in an accident.

If you haven't guessed yet, I grew up when these things were not required. In 1987, my car passed the California emission test without a catalytic converter, because my car (a 1980 Avanti) had an EPA exemption but was still required to be tested. I just tuned up the car right before the test. Turn signals, when I got my driver's license in NC in 1973, I was required to use arm signals in one portion of the test (in case my car signals did not work). Seat belts, when I started driving you were not required to use seat belts, but also the hospitals were not required to treat you if you did not have money. The hospitals did treat people, but only the minimum amount of care.

[markman46]

Congress gave calif wavers on lots of stuff so unless or intill congress canceled the wavers we are stuck