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.
- From GOP convention to Pokemon Bernie: Last...
- In our opinion: Disgusting algae bloom...
- Michael Gerson: The triumph of cynicism
- My view: Algae blooms in Utah Lake
- My view: Prison reform proponents have it...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Shurtleff,...
- Letter: Carbon fee legislation
- Letter: Drones or privacy
- My view: Supporting Utah's public... 34
- In our opinion: The GOP convention... 32
- Letter: Carbon fee legislation 29
- Mia Love: We are the pioneers of our day 27
- In our opinion: Despite alarming shift... 26
- Michael Gerson: The triumph of cynicism 23
- My view: More whites should practice... 22
- My view: Reform coal leasing policies... 17