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.
- Everything you need to know about the...
- Join the discussion: Why is young adult...
- Michael Gerson: Rand Paul's bogus outreach
- Letter: Utah's birthright
- My view: Utah's public education system:...
- In our opinion: Avoid blurring the line...
- Socratic observations — Politics are...
- Doug Robinson: So little time, so many...
- Robert Bennett: Contrary to Krugman,... 56
- Letter: Learn the Constitution 52
- In our opinion: Explaining editorial... 44
- Letter: Utah's birthright 41
- John Florez: Corporate or public... 31
- Join the discussion: Why is young adult... 30
- Letter: Whole story 28
- Michael Gerson: Rand Paul's bogus outreach 28