Madam, - Cllr Deirdre De Burca's letter (December 19th) sets up a straw man, defeats it and then uses the victory to "prove" an unrelated point.
Liberal economics does not envisage that "state-delivered public services represent missed opportunities for private business" but rather that individuals should be free to choose how to lead their lives free from unnecessary state interference.
The values she highlighted (equity, justice, universal access and fundamental human rights) not only have a place in this approach, but are central to it. Where would liberal economics be without an impartial judiciary to uphold individuals' rights against the state and to achieve a balance between competing individual rights? Where would the right to pursue individual success be without universal access to education? Her straw man does not exist.
Using her victory over the non-existent straw man, she states her opposition to opening up "health and education" without giving any reason why the state is uniquely required to be the monopoly provider. There are many methods to provide health and education on a fair basis for the whole of society without the state providing these services directly. For example, the state can give education vouchers to parents to "spend" on whichever school they wish. This gives freedom to parents to educate their children in the school of their choice. The state simply funds schools from the proceeds of taxation by redeeming the vouchers. This structure is very popular among poor parents living in ghettos in the USA as it empowers parents in the best way: it gives them financial power.
There is a worrying philosophical thread running through the opponents of liberalism: they believe that they have some superior right to make choices on my behalf. This approach can be seen in Iran's theocracy, green politics and plain old fascism and communism.
To oppose this power grab by the state (whether EU or Irish), the EU constitution should explicitly ban government interference with individual choices unless it is necessary to achieve a clear democratically approved aim and the means used do not disproportionately interfere with individual rights.- Yours etc.,
FINTAN CLANCY, Hampstead, London.