The talk was given by Sheena Iyengar who studies the concept of choice.  She lists a couple of assumptions that are more or less culturally American ideals.  One, we must make our own choices in order to be successful.  Two, more options equals better choices.  Three, you must never say no to choice.

She discounts the first two assumptions through studies conducted on both Americans and other cultures.  Apparently first generation Asian-American immigrant children perform slightly better on a set of anagram puzzles when they were told their parents had chosen the puzzles for them than American children who were allowed to choose the puzzles they wanted to perform on their own.  The second assumption is discounted through a study that shows that people more often than not cannot tell the difference between Pepsi and Coke.  Also, those in eastern Europe who have recently come out of communism don’t see the option of multiple brands of soft drinks as a choice, it is one choice, just soft drinks.

All of this so far just tells me that there are cultural differences around the world when it comes to the concept of choice.  Great, I already knew that, her attack on the third assumption is the one that gets me really riled up.  She points to a study that shows that American parents who have given birth to a baby that is brain dead and given the choice to remove life support or not are more depressed than French parents in the same situation but where the choice is placed in the doctor’s hands.  I have absolutely no knowledge about the French health care system but I suspect that the choice is not given to the parents because the state is going to pick up the tab for some if not all of the health care bill.

I would like to see a study done on French parents and ask them if they would like to make that choice or leave it in the hands of the doctor.  In a matter of life and death such as this the choice should rest with the parents.  It is called taking responsibility for your choices and actions.  If you don’t want to make that choice fine, let the doctor choose, but those that wish to make that choice should be able to do so.  See what I did there?  In my imperialist American mindset I added another layer of choice, oh no!

Maybe I am reading too much into the lecture but it seems like the attack on choice is by implication an attack on the free-market system that generates the ability to choose.  She ends her lecture that Americans have a lot to learn from other cultures when it comes to the concept of choice.  That may be true but it is the free-market system that generates the ability to have so much choice and has made us the most prosperous nation on the planet.  That cannot be discounted away.  If you don’t want to own the consequences of your choices or take full responsibility go live in communist Cuba or North Korea and see how you like it.  Let those of us who do enjoy the prosperity that choice can bring.

I encourage you to watch the lecture for yourself.  Maybe I am over-reacting and reading too much into it.  You can watch it here.

If you agree or disagree please let me know in the comments.

Penny Arcade is a wonderful blog that has been around for quite some time.  Their comic strips are humorous, sarcastic, and the commentary that accompanies each comic is often insightful.  Due to the San Diego comic con they have posted a few guest strips.  They are an extension of a story told a year ago called Automata and are wonderful.  Part 1 and Part 2 of a 5 part series entitled Blood and Oil are available with three more coming.

A wonderful post over at Cafe Hayek on the nature of unintended consequences and how they have become immediately apparent with the most recent financial regulatory reform law.

A beautifully written post over at Joel C. Miller’s blog about Christian living.  About how the seeming contradiction of the Christian faith, that we must die in order to live, is not a self negation but instead an exchange for something far greater.  He also uses one my favorite C.S. Lewis quotes of all time from the “Weight of Glory”.

The Wall Street Journal’s Real Time Economics Blog has a good Q&A with University of Chicago economist Bruce Meyer about the poverty measure, how we measure poverty is going to change, and his thoughts on both.

I’m really starting to like this Paul Ryan fellow from Wisconsin.  He is a Representative from that state and is proposing a solid plan to get this country back to fiscal sustainability.  Unfortunately he is facing as much opposition from within his own Republican party as he is from Democrats.  Here he is on MSNBC’s Hardball.

Seal of The University of North Carolina System

It is just too easy.  Greensboro’s News and Record editorial page provides such ample fruit to pick from that I can hardly keep up.  In a recent unsigned editorial from last Thursday, July 22, they sadly proclaim that students in the public university system will have to pay more for their education because of state budget deficits that lead to increased tuition.  They lay the blame at the feet of both universities for building too many new buildings, which creates more maintenance costs, and of the legislature who they vaguely claim is not doing enough.  Enough of what?

As a graduate student at UNC-Greensboro I will be affected by this tuition increase, however, I would lay the blame on something much different.  Much is made about the students and families who cannot afford the skyrocketing costs of higher education and then a solution is quickly offered, give more money to those in need, either through subsidized loans or grants.  I have never heard anyone in the popular media connect the dots as I am about to do.

Economics 101: there is supply and then there is demand.  Many states heavily subsidize the demand for higher education through discounted tuition for in-state students.  Think graphically of a downward sloping demand line and an upward sloping supply line that cross so that it looks like an “X”.  The subsidy creates more demand, on the graph this would cause the demand line to move towards the right.  Assuming supply remains constant, at least in the short term, this should lead to higher prices at the new point where supply and demand cross.  In the long run states are trying to shift the supply line to the right by building new dorms and learning halls but that costs money as well.  States are trying to keep prices constant and are failing because of budget deficits.  Yet the solution often advocated is to subsidize some more.  It seems like a case of government failure.

Is all of this subsidization worth it?  A new paper by Jay Schalin, from the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, takes a measured approached in answering the question.  The infamous answer that many economists love to give, and I must admit that I do as well, is that “it depends”.  Schalin says it depends on what the current level of spending on higher education is, what type of education is being subsidized, and what the current economic environment looks like.  While he emphasizes caution, that subsidies have some benefits, the last sentence of the paper states that we may be on the wrong side of the curve, that further subsidies may actually limit economic growth instead of helping.  I look forward to digging deeper into this paper and I would suggest everyone at least give it a quick look.

I am afraid of the bubble forming in the market for higher education.  Similar to what happened in the mortgage and housing markets.  I know that here in North Carolina, and I am sure that this is true in many other states, that there is a large emphasis to go to college.  It is seen as the panacea to all the world’s ills.  I think at some point there will be a sudden awakening to the fact that the calls for ever increasing amounts of aid and subsidization are unsustainable.  Then there will be a collapse.  My hope is that the bubble slowly deflates instead of suddenly popping.

This post is inspired after coming across a couple stories, one in the New York Times and one in the local Greensboro News and Record.  These stories cite examples of the NCAA’s attempt to crack down on athlete’s contact with sports agents.  The New York Times article deals with the ramifications of a baseball players lawsuit with the NCAA that was settled before trial and the Greensboro News and Record deals with the recent announcement by NC Secretary of State Elaine Marshall, currently running for the US Senate, that her office will be investigating inappropriate contact between sports agents and some UNC athletes, an issue that the NCAA is also looking into.

I take special issue with the News and Record’s editorial page and the last sentence in a recent article, “but the law is meant to protect individuals. It should be enforced.”  The editors seem to think that it is the sports agents who are taking advantage of the athletes.  I think the athletes have more reason to worry about the pro sports leagues and the NCAA than agents.  The few athletes who desire to go pro should have nothing stopping them from getting counsel from an agent in order to sign the best contract possible.  As it stands, you are driving those players who desire to go pro underground, trying to avoid harsh penalties from a regime trying to sell a false integrity.

That last sentence also points to an idea that I find disturbing, that the law should protect me from myself.  The law is meant to protect me from other people, not from myself.  If I want to sign a contract then let me face the consequences of that contract.  So long as it is signed of my own free will then I have no one to blame but myself.

Greensboro’s News and Record editorial page would call me a cynic for saying that integrity within college athletics is hopelessly lost but so be it.  When you have coaches than can move around, leaving their athletes high and dry while they pursue some other job at another college or in the pros, the athletes are forced to sit out a year if they should choose to attend another university or play for another coach.  If a program is accused of violations then the coach can leave while the players are left to face the consequences of a couple of “bad” players and management, i.e. the Pete Carroll situation at USC or John Calipari at Memphis.

If the NCAA really wants to restore a measure of integrity then they should do a couple of things.  I can think of three:

One, press the pro leagues to either get rid of age requirements or start their own minor leagues.  Baseball has its own minor leagues, basketball should let go of the foolish age requirement that has created an epidemic of “one and done” players, and football should have some form of minor leagues instead of sponging off universities to train their players for them.  Those players that want to go pro can, those that want to honestly pursue a college education can do so without fear.

Two, instead of prosecuting players and agents let them arrange deals in the open.  Stop trying to create a false integrity that drives those players who are seeking to further their financial security underground.

Three, pay college athletes a portion of the revenue that they help to bring into the university and the NCAA.  Most athletic programs don’t earn accounting profits, those that do, i.e. the big-time football and basketball programs, should set some money aside for the athletes to access after graduation.

Do you disagree?  Any other ideas to improve the integrity of college sports?  Put them in the comments please…

Proposed Amendment 1: Balanced Budget Amendment

Congress shall balance the federal budget over the course of three year intervals.  This amendment shall take effect within 5 years of ratification by 3/4 of the states.  Congress may only run a deficit when a formal declaration of war has been made against a foreign nation.  All surpluses shall be used to pay off the national debt.  Once the debt has been paid off all surpluses shall be put into a emergency fund that shall not be drawn from unless a formal declaration of war has been made.  This fund shall not exceed more than 50% of the total budget, once this limit has been reached taxes shall be cut to balance the budget.

Proposed Amendment 2: Congressional Term Limits

Members of the House of Representatives shall not exceed 3 two year terms and members of the Senate shall not exceed 2 six year terms.  Once a member of either house has reached the term limit he or she shall not be a member of that house again.  Also, once a member of either house has reached the limit of their respective house the member may not hold an elected or appointed federal position for a period of 5 years after they have left office.

Proposed Amendment 3: Regarding Declarations of War

Congress has the sole authority to authorize the use of the armed services against any foreign nation or people.  A formal declaration of war shall accompany each authorization and shall require the approval of 2/3 of each house.

Proposed Amendment 4: A Definition of the Commerce Clause

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 shall be amended such that Congress has the ability to regulate commerce only in as much to prevent trade wars among the several states and to prevent foreign nations and Native American tribes from signing exclusive trade treaties with select states.

Proposed Amendment 5: Repeal of the 17th Amendment

The 17th Amendment regarding the direct election of Senators shall be repealed.  Each state through its legislature shall appoint 2 qualified citizens of that state to represent them in the Senate.

Proposed Amendment 6: Repeal of the 16th Amendment

The 16th amendment authorizing Congress to lay and collect taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration shall be repealed.

I think most of these amendments are self-explanatory except for maybe my proposed fifth amendment regarding the direct election of senators.  The 17th amendment was a result of a populist movement in the early 1900′s.  Appointment to the Senate had become tainted with accusations of deals made in “smokey rooms”.  I can understand why the amendment was made in the first place but I think a side effect was to reduce, if not completely eradicate, the power of the states to affect national policy; this amendment completed what began in the Civil War.  I am willing to risk back room deals, since a free press will likely expose such deals, in order to restore state power.

Three of these amendments reign in the excesses of Congress and one seeks to reign in the power of the executive.  Given the current political atmosphere I think all of these amendments, or something close to them, have a very real possibility of becoming law, except for maybe the one regarding direct election of senators.  I think I may be out on a limb on that one.  Otherwise we can only hope that some or all of these can reign in the size and scope of government and give back to the people a measure of liberty.

What Amendments would you like to see made?

As I was heading to bed I picked it up not expecting to make much progress as I often use books to help me nod off towards sleep.  Instead I was carried away by the forcefulness of his argument and the clarity of his prose.  At just over 70 pages with roughly 11 of those taken up by a brief biography and introduction I was able to finish it in one sitting.

He is one in a great line of thinkers that base their argument in natural law.  If you are unfamiliar with that term you have more than likely heard it before in the Declaration of Independence.  Man is endowed by his creator with certain rights, among these are life, liberty, and property (Jefferson unfortunately changed the last to pursuit of happiness).  Bastiat argues that the law’s sole purpose is to protect those rights.  If at any point the law is used to abridge any of those rights then it is a perversion and can be considered theft or plunder.  It takes him about two pages to lay this out, the rest is an account of all the consequences that arise from the perversion of the law.

I would like to quote just a few parts that I think are the best…

Under such an administration(one devoted to protecting the natural law and nothing else), everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence.  No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labour was free, and the fruits of his labour were protected against all unjust attack.  When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success.  And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost.

When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation.  They oblige him only to abstain from harming others.  They violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property.  They safeguard all of these.  They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all.

When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.  These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.

I could go on and on in quoting until the point where I just quoted the entire book, however, I will not.  He goes on to argue that the right to vote is ever expanding because those who desire the right to vote are often those who have been plundered from and wish to join in the process of theft through law.  Voting would be a dispassionate affair if all the government did was protect the natural rights.  Later on he derides socialism as a false philanthropy and I can’t help myself but quote once more:

Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement.  Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.  This is the seductive lure of socialism.  And I repeat again: these two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other.  We must choose between them.

Ok, I’m done with quoting.  Read this book, there are no excuses.  The prose is clear, it is short work in reading it, and it will cost you maybe $5 in buying a copy of your own.

I would like to ground the first pillar of my argument in the natural rights to life, liberty, and property.  If everyone is entitled to these rights and is to be free from coercion how are we to provide for those who cannot afford, no matter what they do, the privileges of a private defense “force” in a completely private system?  Do we really think that charitable contributions will take up the slack for all those who cannot afford a private defense?  If it did, would this not quickly evolve into a form of feudalism?  Do we really want to return to that era of history?

The second pillar of my argument rests in economics.  I am sure that studies have been conducted concerning parts of my argument that could enlighten this discussion but it seems like there would be some deadweight loss in a completely private system.  Assuming there is no free-riding then there would be inefficiency from everyone duplicating everyone else’s effort.  If there is free-riding how do you stop it?  Or maybe in a completely private system you are not concerned for your neighbor and his free-riding and will let him experience the consequence of under-insuring against an attack?

Dr. Mark LeBar, the moral philosophy lecturer, wrote a comment on yesterday’s post.  He dutifully reminded me of his first lecture on the following question: given that human nature is selfish how can we expect a constitutionally limited government to respect the limits we place on it?  A good question and one that I wrestled with a bit before relying on the wisdom of the founders.  Going back once more to the Madison quote from Federalist 51 yesterday, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” I did not understand in high school civics the founders’ fear of political parties.  Now I do in the context of this quote.  If a political party were to control both the executive and legislative branches then the harness placed on human nature, ambition counteracting ambition, is short circuited.

Given the reality we find ourselves in, of the increasing likelihood that political parties will control both branches, what is the solution to the problem of keeping government limited?  My answer is to go back to first principles.  We have strayed from the founders’ vision but I don’t think we have strayed to the point of no return.  I still think it is possible, especially through the amendment process, to reign in the excesses of either the executive branch, the legislative branch, or both.  I may provide a book review or two before I do but in the next couple of posts I will detail amendments that I would like to see added to our constitution.

In the end I ask the questions in the first couple of paragraphs honestly seeking an answer to them.  I am open to being persuaded.  I have my doubts but as John Maynard Keynes once said “When the facts change, I change my mind.”

I have grown up with a fond appreciation and understanding of the vision laid out by the founders of this country.  I have also come to understand how we have moved away from that vision.  As was outlined in a lecture last week this has come through a “ratchet effect”.  Each time there is a crisis, be it a natural or economic disaster, or a war the size and scope of government grows.  The problem is that once the crisis is over the size and scope of government does not decrease to its previous level.  It may decrease but not all the way, so that each crisis or disaster tends to irrevocably increase the size of government.  This is brilliantly detailed in a book by Robert Higgs called Crisis & Leviathan.

This all makes sense to me and I cannot disagree.  What I disagree with is the solution offered by quite a few at the conference, some of them were faculty and some were my fellow participants in the conference.  The solution is to completely eradicate the government.  I would ask questions, what about courts and the need for police?  Answer: a system of private arbitrators and private defense would arise to take the place of public courts and police.  What about national defense?  Answer: well the whole world will be an anarcho-capitalist paradise.  Virtually everything you could think of could be done privately was the answer.

The fatal flaw of the anarcho-capitalist solution is its fundamental misunderstanding of human nature.  We can argue till the end of time about the religious beliefs of the founders but one thing cannot be argued, they clearly understood human nature to be broken and inherently selfish.  Let me quote from Federalist 51 by James Madison:

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

I think the ambition that Madison speaks of is the ambition to control other men.  The earliest forms of government were tribal chieftains and kings and this should be no surprise.  Even if we were to successfully achieve an anarcho-capitalist society it would not last for long.  You may have achieved your goal but you will not have changed human nature.  You will quickly find yourself at the mercy of the strongest man or woman.

As I stated in my summary of last week I thought that the best lecture was the foreign policy lecture given during our visit to the Cato Institute.  I have become more sympathetic and have come to agree with libertarians on the issues of Iraq and Afghanistan.  I think we need to draw down our forces in both places, give up trying to build new nations, and let them govern and defend themselves.  One concern that still remained was the conservative defense that America needs to be a global hegemon because if we are not then someone else will rise to take our place to fill the vacuum that we have created.  I asked this exact question to the Cato Institute’s foreign policy scholar, Christopher Preble.  His answer was that we should stop beating around the bush and come out and say that the concern is China.  His response was that we should stop being the defense force for Japan, allow them to rearm, and encourage India to act as a counter-balance to China.  A sensible answer and one that has persuaded me.

The other issue that I raised in a small group discussion was the issue of abortion.  My assumption prior to the conference was the majority of libertarians were pro-choice.  It appears that I was mistaken.  The libertarian community seems to be about as divided as the rest of society.  Those who oppose abortion ground their defense in the natural rights of life, liberty, and property.  That the potential for life in the womb must not be wiped out.  I was encouraged by this and was quite surprised.

Overall I enjoyed the many discussions at the conference.  It was a true learning experience and I walked away from it more firmly in the libertarian/classical liberal camp on most if not all the issues.  I do not sympathize with the anarcho-capitalist wing of the libertarian community but they can at least provide some theories on how to privatize some things efficiently.  I will for the foreseeable future see a need for a basic system to maintain the rule of law, courts and police to prevent coercion from my neighbors, and a military to provide a defense against foreign aggressors.

Just in case you have never heard of it before it is directed by Christopher Nolan, director of the Dark Knight, The Prestige, and Memento.  It stars Leonardo DiCaprio as the main character Cobb, Ellen Page as the young “architect of dreams” Ariadne, Ken Watanabe as Cobb’s employer Saito, and Cillian Murphy as the mark, Robert Fischer Jr.  A special shout out must go to Michael Caine as Cobb’s father in law, and to Tom Berenger of Gettysburg fame who plays advisor to Robert Fischer Jr.

Cobb makes his living as a thief of ideas.  His method of performing this task is to infiltrate the dreams of his marks.  The way this works is cleverly explained in a set of scenes between Ariadne and Cobb.  Basically you isolate your mark for an extended amount of time, sedate them, then infiltrate their mind through their dreams.  An “architect” can manipulate this dream world but not too much, otherwise your mark’s subconscious will realize what you are doing and attack much like your immune system will attack a foreign agent inside your body.

Early on in the movie Cobb is caught trying to steal information from the mind of Saito.  Instead of exacting revenge Saito convinces Cobb to work for him.  Only instead of trying to steal information Cobb’s new job will be to implant an idea within the mind of Robert Fischer Jr.  The idea, break up and sell off the company he is heir to.  What follows is essentially a heist movie, only much better, and with really cool special effects.

Much of the movie’s special effects are a result of dream worlds stacked on top each other.  Events at the top, in reality, have implications for events further down the pyramid.  Tension comes in the form of their mark having received training against the possibility of mind theft.  This results in Fischer’s subconscious being extra vigilant and violent as well as the threat of eternal limbo should you die in the dream world because of the sedative that makes all of this dream adventuring possible.

DiCaprio plays a character that is very similar to the one he played in Shutter Island.  Cobb is a man broken by the loss of his wife and just like Shutter Island reality is never quite certain in the world portrayed by Inception.  At one point I did not like DiCaprio or his work but I have come around after having seen The Departed, Shutter Island, and Inception.

In the end this is a movie that will make you think.  This is a rare accomplishment for such a mainstream movie.  I think this movie may just outrank the first Matrix film in terms of special effects and for its ability to make you walk away thinking.  The screenplay, written over eight years, by Christopher Nolan and the ability to bring his vision into reality has officially sold me on all future work by him.  I already liked him for his work on the most recent Batman films and for The Prestige but this movie pushes him over the top in my ranking and I officially call myself one of his fanboys.

Go see this movie, you will not regret it.

The schedule was packed all week long.  After check in there was a brief introduction and then we moved straight into lectures.  Each of the lectures was on a theme, either philosophy, economics, or constitutional history/law, and each lecture was taught by an academic in each field.  The economics and constitutional lectures were pretty basic for me but it was a mixed group that I was with, some having no experience in economics so I can understand why they needed to maintain a basic level.  I found the philosophical lectures to be the most interesting because I did not take a single philosophy class in undergrad and I have read very little on my own.  Most lectures were broken up by “breakout” times where we divided into small groups for discussion.  Sometimes these discussions were guided by questions posed by the lecturer and sometimes the assignment was to come up with good questions to ask and have answered once we came back together.

Outside of lectures there was a little bit of free time each day, about 2 hours each afternoon, and there were socials held at night.  Meals were given in the campus cafeteria and the lecturers would make themselves fully available both at the socials and at the meals.  It was always interesting to see each lecturer hold court, so to speak, at different tables where we could ask questions and have conversations.  While I was certainly getting more physically tired as the week progressed I would say that I was more mentally tired by the end because of all of the thinking, reading, and discussion of libertarian ideas and principles.  That is not a complaint by any stretch of the imagination because I would much rather be mentally tired than physically tired.

The highlights of the week were most definitely the visit to the Cato Institute and the book distribution held on the last day.  The visit to Cato was especially fun because we got to hear lectures from three of their research fellows.  The first lecture on national defense was in my opinion the best.  We also heard about the role of think tanks, principally Cato’s role in the libertarian movement, and also about tax policy.  All of those lectures were held in the morning and once those were finished we were allowed to go wherever we wanted to go in the D.C. area.  I ended up joining up with a group of people and got lunch at Union Station, from there we walked down to the Capitol building and toured that, and then proceeded to walk almost the entire length of the national mall down to the Washington Monument and then to the Jefferson Memorial.  From there we walked back to the Smithsonian metro stop and went to a sports bar to get dinner.  It was raining too heavily to watch any of the all star game and so after we ate we went back to the campus.

The other highlight of the week was the book distribution on the last day.  Again, this was something I wasn’t even anticipating once I got there but I was thrilled once I found out.  The seminar workbook had a list of all of the books that they were giving away and there were far more that I wanted than I was sure I could get.  Plus, there were a limited number of copies of each book so I made sure to be one of the first in line to make sure I got the ones that I wanted.  They had us line up and allowed us to pick two books each during the first and second run through the available books, then just one book during our third run through.  During the first round I picked Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick and Government Failure by Gordon Tullock, Arthur Seldon, and Gordon Brady.  In the second round I picked Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement by Brian Doherty and The Libertarian Reader: Classic & Contemporary Writings from Lao-Tzu to Milton Friedman edited by David Boaz (he works for the Cato Institute and spoke to us about its role in the libertarian movement during our visit there).  During the the third round I picked up the Myth of Social Cost by Steven N.S. Cheung.  There were a couple books that they felt they had enough copies of to not restrict their selection so I also picked Frederic Bastiat’s The Law and a small pamphlet size copy of F.A. Hayek’s Intellectuals and Socialism during the first and second rounds respectively. Overall, I was able to receive roughly $115 worth of books for free, this is awesome!

I thoroughly enjoyed my time in D.C.  While I had been there before and having seen all of the “touristy” things before it was nice to be able to be around people of like mind, to talk about deep philosophical issues as well as more practical policy issues.  In addition to that I think I was able to meet people I would not have otherwise and hopefully will be able to use those connections to get a spring internship at Cato or other liberty minded organization.

Tomorrow I hope to have a write up on the ideas I encountered all week.  There were some that I agreed with and some that disagreed with and I hope to detail those in that article.