Jae C. Hong, File, Associated Press
In a recent article ("Should Congress ban old-fashioned light bulbs?" Aug. 21), Matthew Auer defends the upcoming ban on incandescent light bulbs. He attempts to show it's not really a ban, even though the effect is the same.
Auer's thinking is the type that destroys liberty — one well-intentioned step at a time. His all-too-familiar leap of logic is, "This is a good idea; therefore the government should mandate it."
Yes, newer bulbs may save energy and may work well in some situations, but that's beside the point. Instead, let people decide for themselves, without government involvement. It's called freedom.
- My view: New labor rule may harm Utah's...
- Letter: Constitutional republic
- Letter: Public lands
- In our opinion: Troops in Syria makes sense
- Kathleen Parker: Karma tastes rich in new,...
- Dan Liljenquist: Confronting Saudi Arabia's...
- My view: Will we take the opportunity to wipe...
- Jay Evensen: Utah's homeless problem still rages