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.
- A beleaguered family — 12 in 4...
- In our opinion: Six heroes for our values in...
- About Utah: Jen Seelig came to Utah and made...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Our year-end...
- John Florez: The people's voices don't count
- In our opinion: Keep marriage questions
- Letter: Distance from religion
- Drew Clark: Ebola, cybersecurity and...
- Letter: Access to health care 42
- John Florez: The people's voices don't... 39
- In our opinion: Police vs. protests... 32
- Letter: Distance from religion 32
- Letter: Sharing culpability 22
- In our opinion: Keep marriage questions 21
- A. Scott Anderson: Peace on earth comes... 15
- Mark Reynolds: Cheap gas prices... 13