Check out Stephen Taylor’s and Janet Neilson’s blog about this year’s Seminar (if you’ve blogged it, let us know), and listen to Professor Jan Narveson’s Foundations of Liberty talk from the 2003 LSS. The talk is a great overview of the libertarian political philosophy.

…to begin gearing up for this year’s Liberty Summer Seminar!

It’s the sixth year for this event, and we anticipate a big audience, incredible speakers, and some powerful fun. You can visit the website (libertyseminar.org) to see past events, or you can just hold your horses a bit and wait until we come up with a new site, with more info, more pics, more video, more audio, and more of everything you’d want to get to know, and learn about, liberty in Canada.

This year’s Seminar will take place on the July 29, 30th weekend. We will begin rolling out our speakers soon. Since this blog is linked to the Blogging Tories, you all might be happy to know that Stephen Taylor, co-founder of the Blogging Tories and all-around kick ass guy, will be speaking at the event about blogs. I can’t wait for that talk!

If you’d like to help out, or if you have ideas, please get in touch with me.

The Purpose

The goal of the Summer Seminar is to inspire and educate. To provide a venue for both those who are interested in the general philosophy of liberty (sometimes known by the lables classical liberalism, libertarianism, and neo-liberalism), as well as the seasoned veterans who want to get some good ideas on how to help change the world, or their own communities, for the better. The most definitive heading for the Seminar has been "Liberty in Action."

Now in its fifth year, the Liberty Summer Seminar is the premier annual event of the liberty-minded community in Ontario. Showcasing the best and brightest libertarian minds from Canada and abroad, the Summer Seminar is an event geared towards bringing about active participation on each of our parts to help usher in a future of liberty.

The Idea

The initial idea for the Seminar is Mary Lou Gutscher’s. After having counter-protested the Free Trade Area of the Americas protest (well, sort of — you see, we weren’t happy with the FTAA documents either, so we just protested for free trade), Peter Jaworski was invited to speak about his experiences on a local television program about politics. Mary Lou was scheduled to chat on the same program.

Just prior to the television show, sitting at a Tim Horton’s, Mary Lou pitched the idea of an annual event that would give the liberty-minded community an opportunity to get together and listen to some great speakers and have a great time to boot. "And, oh," she said, "did I mention that I could probably get Jan Narveson and George H. Smith to come?"

That was the deal maker.

The History

And, indeed, both Jan and George came to the first event. So did Sean ‘Val Venis’ Morley of World Wrestling Entertainment (formerly ‘World Wrestling Federation’), Matthew Johnston, Mary Lou herself, Sam Apelbaum, Leader of the Ontario Libertarian Party, as well as Bob Metz, President of the Freedom Party,

The second year saw both Jan and George return (they love it). Last year’s entourage included Pierre Lemieux, Sarah Fitz-Claridge, the U.S. Libertarian Party’s Marc Brandl, campaign managing wiz kid Hartley Lefton, and the return of both Sam Apelbaum, and Bob Metz, as well as Paul McKeever, at the time the new Leader of the Federal Freedom Party.

The Partners

In our endeavour to bring ‘liberty to the masses,’ we’ve enlisted the help of several organizations with whom we are proudly affiliated. Affiliation is based on a mutual love of liberty, and shared goals. In no way does affiliation mean that we necessarily agree with everything the other organizations do, or that they agree with everything we do.

Our lead partner has been Bureaucrash–a youth-oriented website and movement that focuses on providing tools and assistance to young people interested in liberty. Crasher-in-Chief, Jason Talley, is part of our Seminar Committee and U.S. Representative.

We are also partnered with the Canadian Centre for Libertarian Studies, a Canadian-based Centre with the purpose of advancing libertarian political philosophy and ideals in academic and public policy processes.

We have partnered with groups like the Campus Coalition for Liberty–an Ontario-wide coalition of students who are, as their name implies, ‘for liberty.’ A network of liberty-lovers, they write articles, participate in protests, and work on their campuses towards the goal of liberty.

If you would like us to recognize your campus club, national organization, or other group as a partner and affiliate, please drop us a line and let us know. We’re open to affiliating with serious, non-partisan groups interested in advancing the ideas of liberty.

UPDATE: Check out the photos. Read Ian’s blog on the event, and Paul’s for more insight.

This year’s Windsor Liberty Seminar was amazing.

If you missed it, kick yourself a few times. You really missed a great day to chat liberty with some amazing people.

Dr. Jan Narveson gave an overview of the philosophy of liberty, with a few concrete cases to whet our appetite.

Dr. Lydia Miljan followed Narveson with a talk on the Hidden Agendas of the media, and the trouble with empirical studies of bias in the media. Her talk sparked a pretty animated discussion in the breakout groups on just what it means for the media to be biased in one way or another. For instance, does the media influence our preferences, or do our preferences influence the media? The Calgary Herald, for instance, appears to show plenty of positive coverage of the Conservative Party, and the Party tends to do really well in Calgary. But is this a sign of the media responding to the preferences of their audience, or are they helping to shape those preferences? (I suspect it’s both. But think about the CBC, and their positive spin on NDP "news"… Is that the same, or different?)

Gerry Nicholls gave a great talk on pragmatic approaches to pushing liberty. His insight? We need to focus more on the Quality of Lifers… the people who don’t care very much about ideology or philosophy, and care much more about how certain policies might impact them, and their family in terms of their quality of life. He’s right, I think, and good marketing of what are (obviously) great ideas could go a long way.

Dr. Steve Horwitz exposed three economic myths, including the most virulent one–the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It’s nonsense. The rich get richer, sure, but the poor have gotten richer too. And there’s a separate question of whether it’s the *same* rich and poor who are getting richer or poorer. The numbers appear to show that people tend to begin their economic life somewhere near the bottom, and end up somewhere near the top. This makes perfect sense. The numbers are insufficiently subtle to capture the fact of "poor" college students and job market entrants who, after being in the labour market for a while, begin to earn more and more money. Fun, fun, fun.

Finally, Dr. Pierre Desrochers gave an incredible talk about the way capitalists tend to find uses for "waste," converting what was once garbage into useful resources for other things. It doesn’t make much sense to say that capitalists would be happy to throw stuff away–they’re supposed to be greedy, right? So if they’re greedy, why wouldn’t they try to come up with other uses for their sludge, slag, and other by-products of creating things like iron-ore or soap or whatever? Why would you throw out something that could make you even richer? That’s dumb.

Matt Bufton, the organizer of the event, deserves some serious kudos for this event. Hopefully, he’ll keep this up year after year. (You rock, Bufton!)

I also had a chance to meet up with some really cool people. Robert, the fellow who videotaped the event, is planning to do the same for this year’s Liberty Summer Seminar (get on my email list if you want more news about this year’s event). The video will be available soon, and I’ll post on the details once the pictures and videos are available. I also finally met Omar, the fellow who debated me a bit on the Muhammad cartoons issue. He’s a very bright young man who I hope to speak with more often. He plans to attend the Liberty Summer Seminar, hopefully after reading a truckload of Hayek and, maybe, Oakeshott, so I’m sure I’ll get a chance to talk with him some more. Of course, Debi was there, and her vim and optimism about liberty in Canada is contagious. Janet was her typical awesome self, and I got to meet her dad, who was cool.

In short, the Seminar was great fun. Three cheers to Bufton and the Windsor Liberty gang.

Forget Alberta, all the pro-liberty action is in Quebec.

Stuffed to the rims with so-cons, Alberta is only half-right when it comes to politics. The economic half. When it comes to money and wealth, Albertans are right–leave well enough alone and ask me before you put your hands in my pockets. When it comes to the social half, unfortunately, Albertans tend to get it all wrong–they like to meddle in everyone else’s business.

And, yes, you heard me right. The front lines for freedom are all of them in Quebec.

Don’t believe me? Try this list on for size:

1. CHOI-FM: The radio station slowly becoming synonymous with free speech hails from Quebec.

2. Dr. Jacques Chaoulli: The man who just about single-handedly brought down Canada’s socialist health care system in what is surely one of the five most significant Supreme Court cases in our country’s history is a fluent French speaker.

3. The Montreal Economic Institute: Want good policy? Turn to this libertarian think tank hailing from Montreal and rapidly growing in popularity.

4. Le Quebecois Libre: Canada’s only one-hundred per cent, no exceptions, pro-freedom and popular publication hails from Quebec (the Western Standard has a few exceptions).

5. Pierre Lemieux: Quite possibly the most fierce liberty-lover in this country calls Quebec his home.

6. Andre Arthur: This election’s only Independent MP who self-describes himself as a libertarian has "Je me souviens" on his licence plate.

7. Action Democratique du Quebec: Maybe somewhat controversially an addition to this list, but pretty kick-ass as far as the (practical) advancement of liberty goes.

8. Les invasions barbares: A gritty movie about the stupidity of Canada’s health care system is both from Quebec and really, really good.

Has anyone else started to feel this particular breeze emanating from a province typically associated with statist philosophy? If you’ve got some suggestions, send them my way. I would love to expand this list.

NOTE: The list consists of either libertarians, or single-issue items that are pro-liberty on that issue. So, for instance, CHOI is all about free speech, and no one cares about their position on other issues.

Did anybody catch Stephen Harper saying, during the debate, that he would like to see property rights in the Charter? I know Martin said he would get rid of the notwithstanding clause, and everyone thought that was really the most important thing. But property rights in the Charter? Isn’t that worth a third-page mention?

Putting property rights into the Charter is a great idea. To be sure, Canada’s system of law does give some de facto security with respect to property. While we have no enshrined right to property, courts in the past have given deference to individual property holders with respect to some things, and in some contexts. Very much like a budget vote being a confidence motion. It isn’t written anywhere, and it isn’t formal, but tradition insists that you treat votes on the budget as formal votes of confidence as well.

Including property protection in the Charter has several benefits. For one, it might embolden a lot of us to resist eminent domain by government officials. While those familiar with the law, or in a position to speak to a lawyer, are aware that there are legal options when the government comes to take your home and dog away, a significant proportion of Canadians are not aware that they can fight such a move. Since the Charter is more well-known, inserting property rights is likely to make more people aware of their legal ability to do what’s right–fight eminent domain.

Just as it might embolden Joe Canada, it might demoralize the civil servants looking to build statues in honour of Trudeau on the land that is now Mrs. Patty’s kitchen. They better have very good reasons for trying to take someone’s property before they begin the process. As it currently stands, any reason is good enough. The restraint is by convention, not by law.

These kinds of outcomes are easily measured. We see what proportion of eminent domain cases are challenged in court before, and after insertion of property rights into the Charter. My suspicion is that the number of court trials will increase. Alternatively, you might measure (taking appropriate account of demographics and population) the number of eminent domain cases in general. I suspect that they will drop perceptibly.

Property rights in the Charter would also send a powerful symbolic message. Something like: Canada respects property, and the government had better take heed of that. Or maybe: What’s yours is yours, and Ceasar doesn’t just get to take whatever he’d like.

At any rate, it’s a great idea. I hope it happens. And I hope Harper meant it.

Yesterday I posted on the new Tory policy of getting tough on drugs. On mandatory minimum sentences, and on not moving toward the "Liberal" policy of decriminalization of marijuana, or the "NDP" policy of legalizing it. I complained that legalization should be less associated with the NDP, than with the policy minds that are supposed to influence Conservative policy and opinion. The Fraser Institute, the Senate Committee, and so on.

No policy is more likely to rankle me than this one. To be sure, I support gay marriage, and think that this is a policy worthy of aggressive defence also, but the drug issue is more serious to me, since honest and intelligent policy advice is resoundingly in favour of legalization, and since the lives destroyed by this policy count in the millions. It is a disaster on a scale of massive proportion.

And this is coming from me, a fellow who doesn’t smoke pot (tried it about five times), has never done other drugs, and would ground with impunity any son or daughter of mine who dabbled in anything more serious than marijuana and its derivatives (I really believe that marijuana is harmless, and is probably sometimes good for you. But that’s another issue, for another time.)

Some time in the not-too-distant future, you will agree with me. Unless your fanaticism borders on the religious, the daily deluge of policy papers, academic scribblings, op-eds, medical journal findings, and public opinion polls which all point in a similar direction is bound to have an effect on you. If not today, then tomorrow. And if not tomorrow, then a week or month from now. And if you still think it a good idea to incarcerate pot smokers and growers twenty years from now, you will change your mind twenty years later. But the longer it takes for you to change your mind, the longer will this disaster of a policy continue. The longer will we have to put up with lives utterly ruined and destroyed by this policy.

This post is aimed at small- and big-c conservatives. At those who are conservative philosophically, and those who support the political party. It is not really intended for anyone else, since the authorities I cite, and the instances I give are tailored to convince conservatives, not liberals, socialists, and so on.

Thoughtful and intelligent conservatives agree that the war on drugs is a lost cause, and the source of a massive amount of injustice, crime, and loss of life (in both the literal, and figurative sense).

Milton Friedman, a hero to most conservatives, not only thinks the War on Drugs is a failure, he thinks it is immoral. When I asked him, citing a 1972 Newsweek article where he supported the legalization of drugs, if he still felt this way, his response was an unequivocal "Absolutely!" Hard drugs too?, I asked. "Absolutely." What about ethics?:

PJ: Now you also said in that same article that this was an ethical issue as well.
MF: Absolutely—I’ve just said it—what right does the government have to tell me what I may put in my mouth? If the government has the right to tell me what I may put in my mouth, why doesn’t it have the right to tell me what I may put in my mind? There is, in my opinion, no government policy that is as immoral as drug prohibition…
(Friedman and Freedom, March 15, 2002)

Friedman headlined a list of 500 economists who supported a Marijuana Policy Project report, written by Jeffrey Miron of Harvard, urging American legislators to legalize marijuana. You might recognize some of these as heroes, too. The report says:

"The report shows that marijuana legalization — replacing prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation — would save $7.7 billion per year in state and federal expenditures on prohibition enforcement and produce tax revenues of at least $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like most consumer goods. If, however, marijuana were taxed similarly to alcohol or tobacco, it might generate as much as $6.2 billion annually.

The fact that marijuana prohibition has these budgetary impacts does not by itself mean prohibition is bad policy. Existing evidence, however, suggests prohibition has minimal benefits and may itself cause substantial harm."
(Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition, June, 2005)

But Friedman, strictly speaking, is a libertarian, not a conservative. Although he’s a hero to both, you might think of him as being only conservative by overlap. Would you say the same of the National Review? You probably have the magazine bookmarked, if you’re a Canadian Tory. Here is the hallmark publication of the conservative movement proper. No chance of finding many libertarians sympathetic to this magazine, which is more likely to spit on libertarians as make common cause with them. But they don’t spit so much when it comes to drugs. Instead, they support legalization:

"…it is our judgment that the war on drugs has failed, that it is diverting intelligent energy away from how to deal with the problem of addiction, that it is wasting our resources, and that it is encouraging civil, judicial, and penal procedures associated with police states. We all agree on movement toward legalization, even though we may differ on just how far."
(War on drugs is lost, Feb. 12, 1996)

Was the good ship S.S. NR rudderless? Was William F. Buckley, the founder and steerer, in the background pulling his hair as his editorial board veers away from his considered judgment? Was Buckley outvoted on the issue, and the magazine presented an opinion vastly different from his? Not so. Here’s Buckley himself:

"I leave it at this, that it is outrageous to live in a society whose laws tolerate sending young people to life in prison because they grew, or distributed, a dozen ounces of marijuana. I would hope that the good offices of your vital profession would mobilize at least to protest such excesses of wartime zeal, the legal equivalent of a My Lai massacre. And perhaps proceed to recommend the legalization of the sale of most drugs, except to minors."
(Ibid, a speech before the NY Bar Association)

The Economist doesn’t flinch from the subject. The magazine most likely to be found on the shelves of intelligent conservatives and libertarians (amongst a host of others who are serious about economics) agrees: The War on Drugs is a bad idea.

"The best answer is to move slowly but firmly to dismantle the edifice of enforcement. Start with the possession and sale of cannabis and amphetamines, and experiment with different strategies… Move on to hard drugs, sold through licensed outlets. These might be pharmacies or, suggests Ethan Nadelmann, director of the Lindesmith Centre, mail-order distributors…

"John Stuart Mill was right. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. Trade in drugs may be immoral or irresponsible, but it should no longer be illegal."
(Set it free, July 26, 2001)

Meanwhile, here in Canada, the newspapers conservatives are most likely to subscribe to urge legalization. The National Post has issued at least two editorials in f
avour of legalization. One, simply titled "Time to Legalize Pot," says:

"Marijuana legalization has long been the subject of academic debate. The time has come to turn conjecture into law. Canada’s police, judges and prosecutors have better things to do with their time than track down those who produce and consume a substance no more dangerous than alcohol and tobacco. We should begin the decriminalization of marijuana by immediately reducing the punishments that can be imposed for its possession to modest fines — and start thinking about how to regulate its use."
(Time to Legalize Pot, April 1, 2000)

And here’s a snippet from "Pointless Prohibition":

"The only sensible course of action is to end the pointless prohibition of a substance that is neither more dangerous nor more addictive than alcohol or tobacco, and one that has reportedly been smoked by more than 10 million Canadians at some point in their lives… It’s time to make official what Vancouver’s authorities have evidently already accepted, and legalize marijuana." (Pointless Prohibition, Sep. 7, 2004)

The Ottawa Citizen, another staple in the conservative newspaper diet, ran a series of four editorials urging an end to the war on drugs. Here are some excerpts:

"Too often, our political culture equates legalizing drugs with being soft on criminals. But it is criminalization, not legalization, that guarantees wealth and power for gangs and pushers. We will argue Monday that it need not be this way."
(Decriminalizing Drugs, April 12, 1997)

How appropriate is this first line in light of the recent Tory announcement about drugs?… Here’s more:

"The recent history of drug enforcement, both in Canada and the United States, is largely a record of failure. Tax dollars are lavished on enforcement. Police powers are expanded at the expense of civil liberties. Criminal gangs grow richer. And drug use goes on regardless."
(Decriminalizing Drugs II, April 14, 1997)

More:

"But people constantly engage in any number of activities that, like drug use, physically endanger only themselves but risk inflicting emotional trauma on others should something go wrong: scuba diving, skiing, driving Highway 401. Others may be traumatized when sons marry outside the family religion, daughters form sexual relationships with other women, or parents divorce. With harm stretched beyond its original, liberal meaning, almost any activity that attracted a vociferous lobby group and applause-seeking politicians could be outlawed. If we are to have a free society in any meaningful sense, J.S. Mill’s great liberal maxim must be re-invigorated, but with the original, narrow definition of harm intact. And Canada, secure in the knowledge of what is right in a free society, should allow its citizens to make their own decisions about whether or not to use drugs."
(Decriminalizing Drugs III, April 15, 1997)

And in the conclusion of the 4-part series, the Ottawa Citizen puts nails in what should have been a coffin:

"The history of drug use confirms that we will never live in a drug-free society: Too many people inevitably just say yes. But we can have a society in which the worst effects of drug addiction are minimized, and those who are addicted are helped. We can have a society where mafia and biker gangs are not made rich and powerful by the ban on drugs.

Most importantly, we can have a society where the criminal law reflects not expediency and prejudice but principle. We can work toward a society clearly and consistently founded on the great liberal maxim of John Stuart Mill, that: "The individual is not accountable to society for his actions, insofar as these concern the interests of no person but himself.""
(Decriminalizing Drugs IV, April 16, 1997)

Stephen Easton, writing a Fraser Institute policy paper, thinks the enemy (drugs) has won. That’s right, the Fraser Institute, Canada’s most important free market think tank, the place most likely to draw the smartest and best conservatives (and libertarians) in this country.

“If we treat marijuana like any other commodity we can tax it, regulate it, and use the resources the industry generates rather than continue a war against consumption and production that has long since been lost… It is apparent that we are reliving the experience of alcohol prohibition of the early years of the last century.”
(BC’s marijuana crop worth over 7 billion annually, June 9, 2004)

The Cato Institute has many friends in conservative circles. But they have been fierce on the issue. They support the legalization of all drugs. They’ve issued plenty of policy documents, but I will cite just one:

"By now, there can be little doubt that most, if not all, "drug-related murders" are the result of drug prohibition. The same type of violence came with the Eighteenth Amendment’s ban of alcohol in 1920. The murder rate rose with the start of Prohibition, remained high during Prohibition, and then declined for 11 consecutive years when Prohibition ended.[2] The rate of assaults with a firearm rose with Prohibition and declined for 10 consecutive years after Prohibition. In the last year of Prohibition–1933–there were 12,124 homicides and 7,863 assaults with firearms; by 1941 these figures had declined to 8,048 and 4,525, respectively…

In spite of the greatest anti-drug enforcement effort in U.S. history, the drug problem is worse than ever. What should be done now?… The status quo is intolerable–everyone agrees on that. But there are only two alternatives: further escalate the war on drugs, or legalize them. Once the public grasps the consequences of escalation, legalization may win out by default."
(Thinking about drug legalization, May 25, 1989)

There’s plenty more where that came from.

Still think the war on drugs is a good idea? You swim against the tide of considered conservative opinion, my friend.

Soon, you’ll be swimming alone.

I’m not happy with the free vote in Parliament on the issue of gay marriage. And I’m not happy with the health care policy unveiled by the Tories. Here was an opportunity to put forward a policy–that of a private parallel tier for health care–that would significantly and immediately improve Canada’s health care system. And now, today, another policy plank is presented which I think will really help to boost Canada’s prison population. Mandatory minimum sentences for pot growers. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

He said that crack dealers, marijuana grow operators and crystal meth manufacturers "have to know that if they are caught, they will not get a slap on the wrist."

"They will go to prison," Harper told a crowd in Burnaby, B.C.

"It is a serious crime, and they will do serious time."

No, Harper, growing marijuana is not a "serious crime." Not according to most Canadians who view the "dangers" of marijuana on a par with the dangers of stray golf balls.

"A Conservative government will not reintroduce the Liberal plan to decriminalize the possession of marijuana, and we will never endorse the NDP idea of legalizing it outright," the Conservative leader said.

In other words, a Conservative government is not really interested in individual liberty. Instead, it is interested in producing more criminals, and pursuing an archaic and barbaric policy of throwing people with artificially induced munchies into the clink.

It’s disingenuous of the Tories to call the idea of legalization an NDP idea, especially in light of the Fraser Institute’s support of legalization, and the Senate Report that also urged legalization (not decriminalization), of marijuana.

This is such a backwards and horrendous idea. I thought Harper was a classical liberal (that’s what he told me, anyway, I guess a long time ago now). I guess not.

You can listen to Tasha Kheiriddin on CBC Radio’s Sunday Edition right here (Real Player). You can follow Adam’s and Tasha’s media appearances on their website.

Tasha is the co-author, with Adam Daifallah, of Rescuing Canada’s Right, a book that seeks to outline a long-term direction and vision for conservatives in Canada. They argue that we need to build a new infrastructure, one that includes a love of liberty through various grassroots organizations (like the Liberty Summer Seminar). You can hear her talk about this issue at the most recent LSS here.

Tasha won’t mince words–she says that both of Canada’s major parties share a particular problem. Namely: Statism. She gives the Chaoulli decision as a case-in-point. When the decision came down, instead of seeing this as an opportunity, Peter MacKay stood up in the House and accused the Liberals of under-funding health care.

Her insights on environmentalism and fiscal policy are spot on. Instead of bureaucracies, we should look to property rights as a possible solution for the environment. Instead of taking more from Canadians, the government should leave more in our pockets.

Take a listen. She appears with Senator Hugh Segal, and the discussion is exciting.

Ezra Levant’s most recent Publisher’s Note entitled "A retreat to advance liberty" is all about the Liberty Summer Seminar: "Looking for real liberals?," asks Ezra, "You’ll find them every year, standing up for liberty, at Ontario’s Liberty Summer Seminar."

Writes Ezra:

The word "liberal" used to be an adjective rooted in the Latin word for freedom, as in Alberta’s provincial motto, "Fortis et Liber" (strong and free). Today the word liberal has been corrupted, and is used as a noun to describe people who believe that government should constrain personal freedom. Some true believers in liberty try to reclaim that word, describing themselves as "classical liberals," but that assumes a knowledge of the classic works of liberty that isincreasingly rare amongst graduates of our state-run schools.

That’s exactly right!

He continues:

Peter’s Liberty Summer Seminar is a weekend summer camp-style conference, and most guests bring tents and pitch them near the large, gorgeous swimming pond on the Jaworski family’s bucolic property (I admit I retreated to a hotel in Toronto at night).

Well, eventually we’ll have to figure out some way of keeping you on the property.

Ezra goes on to say:

I was delighted to be invited for my second year running, to give an update on our magazine’s progress and to chair a media panel featuring the National Post’s Marni Soupcoff, the Toronto Sun’s Michael Taube and our own Karen Selick. Just as exciting was the presence of liberty-oriented bloggers, including Stephen Taylor, who posts frequently to our own website’s blog, The Shotgun.

You can listen to Ezra’s talk about the magazine by looking on the right-hand side of this blog, and clicking on Ezra in the "Podcast" section. (Stephen Taylor rocks, by the way. Not only did he come to the Seminar, he also posted an ad for it on the Blogging Tories website, and urged others to come as well. Perhaps next year we’ll ask him to be a speaker, hm?)

Ezra has more to say:

It was a serious refresher on the basic principles of liberty for me, and a great chance to reconnect with other journalists and activists from across the country (including loyal readers of the magazine). But what I liked best about it was the fact that Peter is building an institution that is helping to promote the ideas of liberty through a fun annual event–really, a two-day picnic (the food was delicious, by the way). I’d encourage anyone to attend next year. Here are some photos to show you what I mean.

Yup, my mother’s and father’s cooking is hard to compete with, and the most exciting feedback we’ve received typically has something to do with the food. De gustibus non est disputandum, I guess.

I’ll post an image or PDF file of Ezra’s article shortly.