The attached article by Mr. Lomberg raises a key question: in a society based on competition and the freedom of consumers to find products that best fit their needs, why does the government mandate you accept a product they prefer? What exactly is the benefit to the consumer? Is it:
- Less costly
- More efficient
- Provide better service/value
If the mandated product does not address the points above, then what is the rational for the mandate? It should raise significant questions for when the last time was the government mandated a product which altered the consumers buying pattern. The one example that comes to mind is the Affordable Care Act which among other things, promised that it would be less expensive and that you could keep your old doctor. How did that work out?
Bjorn Lomborg has excellent environmental credentials, and he often suggests options which are not only less expensive to all parties, but less traumatic. I hope you enjoy his article.
