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.
- Letter: No labels in 2016?
- John Florez: Businesses should help pay for...
- In our opinion: Research suggests that...
- Arthur Cyr: US presidential politics reflects...
- Letter: Our public lands
- Dan Liljenquist: What we learned from the...
- My view: Your family stories have the power...
- My view: The solution to Utah's water problems
- Richard Davis: Do presidents have to be... 56
- My view: Get insurance out of health care 49
- My view: Obama's veto won't save Obamacare 35
- In our opinion: Attempting to... 32
- My view: 'Death with dignity' and... 27
- In our opinion: Concerned voters a good... 23
- Dan Liljenquist: What we learned from... 19
- Mantua speed trap 17