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: Witt latest BYU runner chasing...
- Jay Evensen: Utah's prosperity is threatened...
- Letter: Marijuana, an evil plant
- My view: Prison relocation study is being...
- Richard Davis: Another conflict of interest...
- Letter: Divorce risks
- Hinkins & King: No losers in Utah’s...
- Derek B. Miller: Politics may end up costing...
- Letter: Marijuana, an evil plant 46
- My view: Prison relocation study is... 22
- Letter: A constant example 21
- Letter: Keep fighting drugs 18
- My view: Higher ed students can better... 18
- David Jensen: Humans are responsible... 18
- Derek B. Miller: Politics may end up... 17
- Jay Evensen: Utah's prosperity is... 16