I have been accepted to participate in an economics and liberty seminar at the Foundation for Economic Education in Irvington, NY. The internationally attended seminar has a 40 year tradition and is the progeny of the foundation's intellectual founder, Ludwig Von Mises, dean of the "Austrian school" of economics.

The foundation is the oldest research organization promoting limited government, free exchange and individual freedom.

My scholarship was based on sponsorship by Dr. Sanford Ikeda and my essay:

Why do you want to attend this seminar?

"I am interested in expanding my knowledge of liberty, free markets and the pursuit of perfection. My interests lie in the expansion and access of Internet and new technologies, and the opportunities provided by the ubiquitous nature of this new largely unrealized medium. Fundamental ideas of free markets, innovation and distribution of opportunity and wealth are conducive to a technologically networked world."

What can you contribute to this seminar?

"My academic and professional background have been focused on electronic communications and commerce, in areas pertaining to both consumer empowerment and producer efficiencies. I have studied "new economy" models as well as economic and political theory in an independent as well as traditional academic environment. My professional career has been primarily focused on realizing Internet and Internet-related applications in new media and e-commerce. I enjoy reconciling theory with practical application."

In his book, False Dawn, John Gray argues that "Democracy and the free market are rivals, not allies." In an essay no longer than 1000 words, construct an argument to either refute or support Gray's thesis:

"Democracy and the free market are in fact compatible, if not correlative. Democracy, defined as government in which the supreme power is vested in the people, warrants choice by and representation of those governed. A free market is one where no central authority is responsible for control of commercial exchange among persons and therefore presupposes choice by individuals according to their own devices. A "perfectly" democratic society might be one where individuals primarily see to their own governance. An extension of that individualism would include freewill in determining the ways and means of production and consumption: individual choice in decisions involving exchange between parties. The opposite scenario would be a centrally-controlled entity that regulates commerce and therefore regulates choice among those governed: a market that is indeed not free, but with oversight resulting in the representation of a few who attempt to determine commercial prerogatives of many.

The United States, practicing a flavor of democracy and harboring an economic system as close to a "free market" as any in the world, stands as a bastion of hope for many who desire the choice to engage and exchange goods and services with others who will reciprocate. The representative government established by the founding fathers of the United States has a predilection for free exchange among peoples and, rising to status as one of the wealthiest nations in the world, represents an operational example of the compatibility of democracy and the free market. Although exhibiting a regulatory hand in many economic functions, it is one of the most liberal countries in allowing free flow of capital, goods, services and human resources. Through free elections, citizens have yet to completely dispose of the idea of a free market, although many seek to curb it, and democracy has remained in harmony with a relatively free market system.

Conversely, nations that have heavily regulated or completely controlled economic functions are also those that exhibit totalitarian control and refute democratically held elections. From the failed legacies of market control by Lenin, Stalin, and Mao to the struggling experimentation with "limited markets" in today's remaining authoritarian governments of China, Vietnam and Cuba, evidence exists of the hopelessness and inefficiencies of centrally-controlled markets in these very undemocratic environments.

Societies wherein individuals are allowed to choose will most often lead to them choosing to deal with one another, versus an authoritative entity, and a natural extension of this freedom of choice will be freedom to find among their peers buyers and sellers of desired goods and services. The alternative is a sacrifice of democratic franchise in favor of despotic rule, the substitution of individual choice for authoritarian mandate."

I'll provide an update upon completion.