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.
- My view: Mitt Romney's Harry Potter moment:...
- Orrin Hatch: My meeting with Supreme Court...
- Carmen Rasmusen Herbert: How Alex Boye's...
- In our opinion: Repairing Salt Lake City streets
- Arthur Cyr: North Korea’s leaders...
- George F. Will: Britain at the crossroads
- My view: The one thing that could solve...
- In our opinion: Increased on-screen violence...
- My view: Mitt Romney's Harry Potter... 50
- Orrin Hatch: My meeting with Supreme... 45
- My view: Character still matters in... 24
- Letter: Trump's delegate count 20
- Letter: Obama visits Hiroshima 18
- In our opinion: Remembering Hiroshima... 15
- Mia Love: America's soldiers are... 14
- My view: The one thing that could solve... 11