An email came across the other day from the libertarian think tank, the Cato institute, inviting me to compete in an essay contest with some fairly significant financial prizes.

Vision for Liberty Award

Dear Mr. Greenfield,

The Cato Institute is launching the Vision for Liberty Award, which will pay $50,000, $25,000, and $12,500 to the three best written cases for individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace. Total winnings sum to $87,500. Submissions open March 1, 2027, which means you have months, starting now, to think, research, and write your best work before the contest window even opens.

Here’s the prompt:

Write an article in support of libertarianism, analyze the world through a libertarian lens, propose an innovative libertarian policy proposal, or pen an article with a distinct libertarian theme.

This contest is your chance to put that reasoning on the page. Make the case well enough, and you are not just writing an article, you are handing the next reader a reason to believe in a freer world, and putting your own name on an idea that could shape how people think about liberty long after you have submitted it.

No policy experience required. No famous name needed. Students, entrepreneurs, Hill staffers, government employees, independent thinkers: if you are a US resident and can write 1,500 words that make a fresh, rigorous case for liberty over power, you are eligible.

Winners may be invited to present their work to Cato scholars or the public, record a podcast with Cato, publish further with the Institute, attend Cato University, and build a lasting relationship with one of the most respected institutions in the fight for freedom.

Three awards, $87,500 total:

The Thomas Jefferson Award: $50,000
The David Boaz Award: $25,000
The Trenchard and Gordon Award: $12,500

My initial reaction was that it’s wonderful that Cato is encouraging writing on “individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace.” Actually, it’s wonderful that Cato is encouraging writing at all. As podcasts and instagram influencers spew cheap takes reflecting neither depth of thought nor accurate information subject to serious scrutiny, the blogosphere has gone the way of the dodo for the most part. Remember when the blogosphere (including the blawgosphere, our little beloved flock of folks writing primarily about the law and legal doings) was filled with vitality and vigorous debate?

SJ has been here since 2007, in what I call the second wave of the blawgosphere. Back then, there was many of us. Now, there are few. It’s hard work to keep this up day after day, year after year. I’m not complaining, and certainly no one makes me do it when I don’t want to or have nothing useful to contribute. As I’ve explained many times, this is my catharsis. I write because I need to write, not because it’s my how I earn a living or have an obligation to provide content to subscribers.

One of the reasons I didn’t move to another platform, like substack which courted me to move, to turn SJ into a subscription model blog was so that I wouldn’t wake up in the morning feeling duty-bound to earn the money subscribers were paying to read my writings. It’s here. It’s free. Read all you want or not. I write for me. You read for you. Or not.

When I found the Cato contest email in my inbox, I considered what it meant to me. I’m not a libertarian, though I share many of the same beliefs from time to time. I’m still a fan of Cato, even if it has forsaken its involvement in criminal law issues when its annual criminal law panels faded into obscurity. It’s been doing yeoman’s work in the immigration sphere, addressing the outrageous constitutional violations committed by ICE against immigrants. And being a capitalist, I take no issue with a cash award. Much as I deeply appreciate the contributions some of you make to the ongoing expenses of running SJ, the costs are perpetually increasing and, unlike some folks, I pay my bills.

But what would I write that I haven’t already written? In a very real sense, the entirety of SJ is one long essay covering, more or less, “individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace.” I’m not the sort of person to enter a writing contest, per se, with my submission crying “pick me, pick me.” I wouldn’t turn my nose up if the Pulitzer folks called, but I’m fairly certain they don’t have my number. Contrary to the current fashion, I’m not a self-promoter and I find bragging repugnant.

Cato, on the other hand, has my number. They know where to find me. They know what I’ve written. If they want to award a prize to SJ for its almost 20 years of free content, I would be honored. But I won’t submit an essay. And I won’t be waiting by the mailbox for a check to arrive.