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.
- In our opinion: Brexit and the U.K.'s new...
- On Second Thought: Departugal, Italeave and...
- John Florez: If elephants can dance so can...
- Letter: Come together
- Letter: Reducing teacher load
- Charles Krauthammer: Hillaryism: Tired...
- Robert J. Samuelson: Are you a 'work martyr'?
- Ralph Becker: The path to healthy communities...
- Letter: Shooter's motives 40
- Kathleen Parker: Repeat, retreat, reload 40
- Letter: Carbon emissions fee 31
- Letter: Brexit shortsighted? 23
- Letter: Panhandlers in Sandy 20
- My view: Taxpayers should call foul on... 19
- In our opinion: Brexit and the U.K.'s... 18
- Charles Krauthammer: Hillaryism: Tired... 17