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.
- Doug Robinson: The first kiss and the long...
- Jay Evensen: Why some mothers kill babies:...
- Doug Robinson: Basketball needs a new, less...
- In our opinion: An immigration opportunity
- Drew Clark: Meaning of 'thou shalt not kill'...
- Letter: Socialism, like salt
- Letter: Disagreement vs. hate
- About Utah: Biggest weekend of the year at...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Why the... 56
- In our opinion: The Ten Commandments in... 52
- Charles Krauthammer: Defend the... 52
- Letter: Socialism, like salt 44
- Robert Bennett: Making our own spending... 40
- In our opinion: An immigration opportunity 35
- Letter: Disagreement vs. hate 32
- Robert J. Samuelson: Long-term... 25