After Cato University, the scholarship students were asked to write a letter to their sponsor, this is what I wrote:#

Dear Cato Sponsor,#

After a week it is clear that Cato University is the program that I had been looking for through the last few years of my life, and I am not an old person. From the time I started college I had been looking for meaning conversation and debate about those issues that I cared about, and a taste of issues that might pique my interest. The Cato University lecturers and the other attendees provided for this desire.#

In my every-day interactions with other intelligent people my debates have primarily revolved around those basic issues that socials and capitalists disagree on, and often became incredibly unproductive after the first few rounds. During the past week, I have had more engaging and productive debates than in the last year aggregated. This is not only because we tend to agree on basic principles (which isn't always true), but because the atmosphere promotes such an assumption and encourages thoughtful devil's advocates.#

To explain, I will first cite something Tom G. Palmer, the director, and some of the other presenters, said about discussing liberty with students, university professors, and others. He said that it is not our job to convert people. People do not like being converted. And why should we want to necessarily? Is it not better for people to come to liberty by the influence of their own liberty? When David Schmidtz spoke about this, he said that he believes in intellectual freedom and does not promote a particular philosophy to his students, but allows them to formulate on their own. A corollary to this guideline is taking on the "opponent" with their most powerful argument, rather than a straw man. This intellectual integrity is described by Susan Chamberlin as one of the missions of the Cato Institute.#

The relation of these two ideas is something that I came to realize at Cato University, and this realization alone would be worthwhile even if I did not have access to the other exciting topics, intelligent new friends, amazing scenery, and fabulous vacation activities. The relation is such: You cannot cultivate your mind without respectful disagreement and discussion. (I found this best expressed in David S. Landes' quotation of David Gans in The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: "As David Gans, an early seventeenth-century popularizer of natural science, put it, one knows that magic and diving are not science because their practitioners do not argue with one another. Without controversy, no serious pursuit of knowledge and truth." (p. 203)) But you cannot do this when assuming that the purpose of your discussion is to conquer and convert your "opponent," this outlook cannot foster the needed respect. Like trade, conversation should be a win-win situation with both sides gaining cultivation of mind. As a result, since I agree with the view that the purpose of our life is to "cultivate our gardens" (or make ourselves free to do so,) it is not a responsibility of the libertarian or free-market economist to convert--only engage.#

I am profoundly grateful for this gift and hope to make my return to the favour bank in the future.#

When re-writing this I noticed some stupid mistakes and strange phrasings. I feel like an idiot for not submitting it in better form. C'est la vie.#