AUTHOR'S WORDS SHOCK THE CONSCIENCE OF A CIVILIZED SOCIETY

AUTHOR'S WORDS SHOCK THE CONSCIENCE OF A CIVILIZED SOCIETY

The following comments are in response to ''The high cost of complete equality: freedom'' by Robyn Blumner in your Dec. 28 edition (opinion article, Page 6).

Notwithstanding the blatant irrelevance of such an article to the subject matter of this publication, the words of the author shock the conscience of a civilized society.This writer is in agreement with the author's premises that federal statutes require certain classes of citizens to be afforded equal opportunities in their individual pursuits and that those opportunities produce an inherent consequence of allowing persons to pursue their respective dreams, who, in the absence of such statutes, would be summarily excluded therefrom.

However, exception must be taken with the author's conclusion that these opportunities are detrimental to our freedom.

The author's conclusion begs the question, ''What is freedom?''

Are citizens ''free'' if they are given the chance to achieve their potential as human beings in any manner in which they may choose? Or, as the author suggests, is freedom determined solely by an arbitrary rolling of the social dice?

If one adopts the author's conclusion, then one must call into question the validity of the several amendments to the United States Constitution related to due process and equal protection of the laws, the various Civil Rights Acts and the numerous precedent-setting decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and their progeny, all of which granted equality to previously unprotected classes of citizens.

If one extends the reasoning of the author to its logical conclusion, then citizens born into slavery, or citizens of color or female citizens, should never be free to enjoy the same rights and privileges as those enjoyed by the white, male, property-owning citizens.

Besides, it is true that if one is not a citizen included in the latter category, it is merely a result of an unfortunate roll of the dice, is it not? And unfortunate rolls of the dice should never become detrimental to the freedom of white, male, property-owning citizens, should they?

MARK L. PENNY

Coats, N.C.

FAVORABLE OUTLOOK SHOULD BE PRECURSOR OF BETTER PERFORMANCE

I enjoyed Larry Kaufman's column of Dec. 15 (''Rails have great potential - and always will,'' Page 6) - especially when he quoted Jim Valentine of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter.

Kaufman's conclusion that Wall Street penalizes uncertainty is true. However, the Street also looks ahead, and his generally favorable outlook for broad recoveries by the laggards should be a precursor to a better performance in 2000 than the underperformance this year by most of the stocks.

BURT STRAUSS

Dominick & Dominick New York City

The Journal of Commerce welcomes letters to the editor. They may be e-mailed without attachments to gstorey@mail.joc.com; or faxed to The Editor, The Journal of Commerce, (212) 837-7007; or mailed to The Editor, The Journal of Commerce, Two World Trade Center, 27th floor, New York, N.Y. 10048. Letters should include the writer's name, address, daytime telephone number and, if pertinent, title and company or organization name. Because of space limitations, letters under 500 words in length have a better chance of publication. Letters may be edited for space or clarity. They cannot be returned or acknowledged.