Good thing I live in the state that allows me to buy lightbulbs that I want to buy, not that it's a big deal at all. It IS all about the principal.
I do have a reason to prefer 300 W incandesce bulbs, three reasons - they have better light, they are cheaper and they are more accessible.
I think you are off on your percentages, are you from California?
Dude, straight up, you're a nutjob. If it makes you feel any better, most people are stupid, so you're not alone.
If we're talking about the US government's effort to push people away from incandescent bulbs, your 300W bulbs aren't covered. Your 300W bulbs are irrelevant, so shut up. No one has advocated a 100% ban. In this thread, I only advocated a tax.
Your claim incandescents have better light is bullsh1t. Technically, it's true LEDs don't perfectly match an incandescent light, but you don't need a perfect incandescent light. The CRI of LEDs can now surpass 98%, indistinguishable to the human eye. But, LEDs can produce any kind of light, making them far better for many things. If you want a plant light, get red and blue LEDs.
As for saving money, unless you're stealing electricity, you're draining your bank account, fool. You can match the light level of a 300W incandescent with a LED lights of under 40 watts. Within a year or two, that 300W bulb's electric cost is going to put the total cost over the LED. But, by that time, it'll have burned out, so you'll have to buy a new one. Meanwhile, I'm looking at a 300W equivalent LED with an estimated life of 32 years. So, bucko, over time, you won't even save on the bulb cost alone, without even considering the eight times more you're spending on electricity.
I'm happy that might public utility isn't hitting me up with rate increases to pay to expand capacity for all the damn morons who wouldn't go to LED without a government shove. I'm happy for the reduced pollution and other benefits from the public being pushed to LEDs.