Personal Freedoms Vital

To the editors:

I have yet to hear or read of a more perfect expression of the liberal conceit than Andrea E. Johnson and Abigail R. Branch's column of April 15, "Only a Start."

They write, "[I]n the flurry of reigning in the forces of our economy we forget to wonder if there isn't a better way."

Do they suggest a "better way"? Well, they state repeatedly that they refuse to accept the premise of our economy, namely self-interest. But they don't propose any solutions. Here are a few possibilities: raise personal income taxes to 75 percent on the incomes over $100,000, double welfare benefits or tax the hell out of goods produced in un-unionized firms and countries.

The premise behind raising taxes under their "better way" is not that there are necessary functions that the government must perform which require money, but rather that a society made up of self-interested individuals unfairly allocates its resources so all of us stupid folks can't be left to make our own choices in how to allocate our own resources.

If in charge, Branch and Johnson might say to the American people: "You don't spend your income in the way we think you should, so you don't deserve it. Give it to us. And while you're at it, hand over your freedoms of economic, political and religious choice. We'll take that too."

If this is a better way, please show me how and for whom. As an economics student, I may have a "simplistic faith in the Truth of the market," but if that allows me to have faith in myself and exercise my freedom, then so be it. Maybe I've watched "Braveheart" too many times or have studied and respect the American Revolution too much, but it will be a cold day in hell before I willingly hand over my freedoms of labor, speech, religion and all that other stuff the Bill of Rights says to a government (of Johnsons and Branches) that thinks it knows what's best for me better than I do myself. WESLEY B. GILCHRIST '98   April 17, 1998