I sympathize with the Oath Keepers, and I see where they are coming from; widespread, ever more intrusive regulation is problem on all levels of government.
On the other hand, there ARE such things as externalities and market failure, and there ARE such things as water shortages and pollution. Nor will these problems spontaneously solve themselves. Nor is the government going to knock down your door and seize your light bulbs, or your toilet, or your shower head. They are regulating what may be sold. That is a constraint on freedom, but you know, not in the same category as, well, indefinite detention or the gun point seizure of old fashioned light bulbs. I'll also point out that most other civilized countries have comparable environmental regulations, and yet have no equivalent to the NDAA. Or the TSA, for that matter. Indeed, much have much more oppressive environmental regulations than we do, and yet they seem to have a far lower rate of doors being violently knocked down for regulatory violations . . .
I fear, Oathkeepers, that the problem lies not in our environmental regulations, but in ourselves. Because the public actually seems to care more about lightbulb regulations and toilets than it does about indefinite detention. Indeed, the House has tried to delay the implementation of the lightbulb regulations . . . but they did not even blink at the NDAA. Apparently, we can cite the Constitution and all our Congressmen about our right to use an inefficient lightbulb (indirectly harming other citizens in the long run) a right that is not expressly stated in the Constitution, but we cannot bother to do so to protect our right not to be detained indefinitely without trial, a right that certainly IS expressly guaranteed by the Constitution.
Oh, and actually . . . about those light bulbs . . . you are not forced to use compact florescents (which, by the way, are not all that toxic unless you got in the habit of eating them or are the world's absolute clumsiest homeowner). The light bulb companies have developed more efficient incandescent bulbs for people who want to use them and will be making them available. If you like, you can use those. LEDs are also becoming more feasible as bulbs. The change in the law seems to have spawned a wave of light source innovation as companies are forced to find a way to produce a light bulb that people like and find affordable. Perhaps that would have happened anyway, perhaps not. But lets represent the situation accurately, please?