Dear Sir, In response to Rolfe Commissiong, Everett Dill, and Larry Burchall who raised important points in my earlier letter to you, I would just like to say that I wished, firstly to point out that many of the schemes akin to "black empowerment'' have had a notoriously poor record of success elsewhere in the world. And secondly, that tampering with the rule of law is dangerous. By the rule of law I mean the process that secures order and liberty for all by ensuring equal impersonal treatment according to known rules, and without regard to status, rank, race, religion or political persuasion. Take away the rule of law and we are all at risk of loss of life, liberty, and property to grasping government officials and those who are politically well connected.

I still have a feeling of bewilderment in that public support of the ideas of freedom and equality before the law lead some to accuse me as a supporter of privilege and a reactionary. Maybe King George III was right and George Washington, Patrick Henry, John Hancock and the other Founding Fathers were wrong.

Rolfe Commissiong questions that Minister Webb has never told Cable and Wireless that until they (sic) partners who look like her they will not get a licence to start a new local telephone service. I simply accepted what the Editor of The Gazette reported. If he is incorrect Mr. Commissiong should take the matter up with him, not me.

Mr. Commissiong states that I do not offer any practical solutions as to how black empowerment can be achieved. I am old enough to know that advice given by someone like me is invariably disregarded. I am also opposed to those who give advice on the basis that they know better than you as to how you should live your life. However, he may find it worthwhile to consult the "2001 Index of Economic Freedom'' published by the Heritage Foundation, only available in the past two weeks which addresses the points to which he would like an answer.

Larry Burchall, in The Bermuda Sun, stated he and I had different perceptions of equality. That is perfectly reasonable, but we each want "a Bermuda in which promotion is based on merit and success comes to those who delay gratification and so on''.

Mr. Dill states that I have a selective memory. I think he is referring to the fact that although under the American and Bermuda constitutions we have the appearance of legal equality, there is a great disparity in the outcomes because the economic system did not operate impartially. IF that was the case, and in a great many respects that was the case, that is not an argument for replacing one unfair system with another which is what I suspect the Minister wishes to do. He may well be referring to the fact that despite lofty claims of equality, the reality for many people is very different. the existence of slavery is clearly a contradiction of the rule of law as was the treatment of native Americans in the 19th Century, and the treatment of Japanese Americans in the 20th Century. Unfortunately, history is largely a catalogue of men's inhumanity to man, and that we need to learn from the lessons of the past, not repeat its mistakes.

Mr. Dill also questions whether the rule of law was a major determinant of the modern economy. The fact is that the new equality of status encouraged freedom of contract and wealth began to be acquired by those who merited it, rather than those who inherited it. He may wish to refer to "The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity through the Ages'' by Tom Bethell. It has been fashionable to complain about those who pour cold water over ambitious proposals for social improvement. This tends to annoy reformers, and those possessed by financial fantasies such as affordable housing, equality of outcomes, or a more equitable distribution of incomes. It is difficult to keep such economic debates on a rational plane when unrealistic political promises and wishful thinking dominate debate. At the same time, when people talk about the free market economy that is taken by many in Bermuda to mean a heartless and unjust system of unrestrained selfishness. Efficiency and personal responsibility are assumed to be code words for the brutal survival of the fittest, and perpetuation of the good life for the minority white population.

I suspect that this is at the root of Larry Burchall's claims that equality means different things to him than it does to me.

To start talking about such things as the costs involved, facts versus wishful thinking, pious hopes versus realistic objectives, the long term effects as opposed to the short term benefits, the difference between surmise and probability, the experience in other parts of the world, is to condemn me as negative, indifferent, or lacking compassion.

Genuine doubts, about the practicality or the viability of policies provoke protests from those whose only policy is an act of faith or adherence to political dogma. Those who have such fantasies are not really interested having difficulties pointed out, in cold hard facts or even rational argument.

When the woolly policies or loose language is analysed and subjected to scrutiny, economic criticism is regarded with horror and, worse people like me who draw attention to it are often regarded as the enemy or part of the problem. It is easier to paint those who point out difficulties or inconsistencies as being ideologically or culturally biased unable to understand that the world could be made better if only the right people were in charge.

The nub of the issue is that free individuals are able do what they want, say what they like, make choices among options, and live their lives in any manner they choose without the consent, approval, or sanction of anyone else, or any groups, or by government. They reap the financial benefits of the choices they make, and they pay the penalties for the mistakes they make. Unfortunately, the outcomes are frequently at variance with what the politicians would like to see. This often results in unworkable policies being proposed.

The key to economic improvement in Bermuda, of which "black empowerment'' is an important component, is not conformity to one central vision -- the view supported by the PLP government -- but by unplanned, open ended trial and error with the appropriate rewards and penalties being awarded to those individuals who succeed and those who fail. A controlled uniform society that changes only with permission from some central authority like government does not work as the examples of Albania, Jamaica, and North Korea show only too clearly.

The true enemies of economic success, including black empowerment, are those who succumb to short term political interference, limit the competitive process, over regulate and prescribe outcomes in advance, circumventing the process of free competition. Progress comes not from a master plan but from experiment, innovation, risk, individual effort supported by the rule of law, respect for private property and the absence of official corruption. But most of all from an understanding that it is impossible to build a utopia or a new Jerusalem from existing society.

Adam Smith said it best over 200 years ago "Little else is required to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice''.

ROBERT STEWART Flatt's Village Where is the equality? May 8, 2001 Dear Sir, Senator Calvin Smith kindly wrote a response to my recent letter concerning the proposed constitutional changes and the democracy/dictatorship comparison I raised.

Equality and accountability are indeed two of the cornerstones of democracy, but do the current proposals give Bermuda such hallowed benefits? Electoral reform, as now proposed, has not been put to the electorate in the form of a referendum, or any sort of vote for that matter. Even the British, in the Jenkins Report, specifically state that change to their `constitution' and voting system must come from a referendum. The fact that the FCO and the Governor have not categorically stated this for Bermuda so far is worrying.

Where are the equality and accountability and democracy? Considerable concern and apprehension has been fostered by the autocratic, some would say dictatorial, style of government. That any Premier holds, what appears to many, an absolute control over the deliberations of the Boundaries Commission raises the spectre of the future voting areas being `arranged' to ensure that only the incumbent government candidates get elected in each area.

Hardly what you would term as equality or democracy.

The Westminster system of first past the post has its faults, and so does proportional representation, but there are clear indications that the proposed changes may disadvantage and exclude almost 50 percent of the electorate, on the premise of the much vaunted `one man one vote of equal value'. That vote may prove to be more equal for some than a lot of others, and may be viewed as a device to concentrate absolute power in the hands of a few select persons rather than many. That cannot be democratic and cannot meet the equality and accountability cornerstones, howsoever you wish it would.

PHIL CRACKNELL Hamilton