FILE - In this Jan. 21, 2011 file photo, manager Nick Reynoza holds a 100-watt incandescent light bulb at Royal Lighting in Los Angeles. In an attempt to cut energy consumption, federal laws will soon prohibit the sale of some incandescent bulbs. California began the process early, starting its phase-out last month. The rest of the country will begin next year.
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.
Gerald Larsen
Kearns
- My view: MMR vaccine caused my son's autism
- My view: Voting member's perspective on the...
- Letters: Founders' values
- John Florez: Government a big vending machine
- White House press corps has been turned into...
- In our opinion: Leave NCIC alone
- George F. Will: Obama takes a page from...
- The winners and the losers
Subscribe
Mobile
RSS
Freedom! Darn tootin!
In addition to lightbulb freedom, I also want to decide for myself how fast I can drive my car and what kinds of chemicals I can pour down my kitchen sink!
Let me guess. Mr. Larson is probably also against government-mandated auto emission standards, regulation of tobacco and alcohol, all forms of environmental protection, gun control, speed limits, off-road vehicle restrictions, and income taxes, all More..
More hoopla over CFL's. Same as low flow toilets.
Big deal.
This was a very bi-partisan bill signed by GW Bush.
Low flow toilets? Oh yes, signed by HW Bush.
Yes, we lost some "freedom". To me, the More..