The case know I look to an audio chaudhry pembroke college so could you have dogs

union to open the case for the opposition. Liberty would see photos in london
england a loaded or the by republicans in london tennessee. Good evening or and
thank you ever see much missed the prices for the opportunity to speak of as debate
today. Given the sheer breadth of this topic being asked to speak on this notion of
first clause wasn't so much like sculpt and my intellectual dominoes as it was like
silencing my mind. That's a safe option I suppose and what the proposition probably
want us to have today. But before I elaborate on that speaking of the proposition
it falls on me to introduce them you just heard from lucy banks a second year
history student at new college a season can better it and young hack I'm sure she's
used to giving up the liberty to have any real opinion of her own for the safety of
knowing. You bump into a potential vote at the local cracked. Second we have adam
wagner a human rights barista doubt street chambers the former special advisor to
the joint committee on human rights cave nineteen inquiry he hosts the better human
podcast and as a visiting professor of law at goldsmiths university london. We also
have professor allison polak an academic and consultant in public health medicine
she's a former director of the institute of health and society at newcastle
university and former head of the public health policy it at university college
london. Lastly we have andrew chan chair of the debates less selection committee
mathematics and computer science student at sit guns college and famously from new
zealand aren't you lucky managed to escape in time to be here today. Mr president
is your speakers and they are most welcome. The proposition tonight ladies and
gentlemen wool and have painted you a narrative english much they suggest two
things. Fast the liberty safety each is a meaningful trade off to bait I will show
you why this assumption is a false even if we assume a negative idea of freedom as
spirit of the debate suggest and in the slightly more stringent dash old secondly
that safety is more important in the long run I collect to be. The liberty I will
demonstrate to you why this is a misguided approach to achieving our common goal of
human flourishing and instead to a slippery slope of terry. To clarify it is the
burden of the proposition to demonstrate that in every circumstance I'm going
forward and make sense to give up liberty for safety we are not arguing that we
ought to give up safety for liberty in up someone's dots oh we can all agree that
we need a basic level of safety that trade off does not make. Sense. This brings me
onto my first point it is on a meaningful trade off and the first place. One is not
free if one is not safe a certain measure of safety is essential to freedom that is
not only their in theory but in practice as well. Benjamin franklin quote outlined
in the description and alluded to buy the first proposition speaker exemplifies
this. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety in the context of taxation and military
protection he felt the freedom that they would give up was too great on a return
the safety they would get was too little. It is often this sentiment that lies
behind much for the frustration with the government's handling of a pandemic. The
first thing to note is safety at liberty the links are not merely two sides of the
same coin even the negative idea of liberty to wish this motion leads to on which I
will it to entertain although college do is the absence of coercion for safety is
much more subjective you're either in quarantine or not. But what he was safe from
the virus is a bossy more personal complex subject of issue. What is safe for you
and new a new will depend on your preferences present circumstances and situations.
Bradbury flash flesh be brad that kind of. The second thing to note is that the key
words from that quote a not liberty and safety but rather sensual and temporary you
would not give up something that is essential whether it's liberty or safety for
something that is temporary what so many of these safety measures can or not is
related to go and. C b and therefore this trade off is not meaningful innocence.
Let's take curb it I'm not here to argue an anti lock down case where I'm I'm here
to do is argue that it last in at least the majority of instances the trade off
presented is not helpful. Going forward if we are not free to try different
policies it is impossible to walk out the ones that are safest while the other side
will have you believe that it is a black and white issue it is impossible to
confirm that clue good relation restrictions on freedom have universally an
infinitely made of safe. For in any sense. Studies have documented heterogeneous
impacts depending on population density age and dependency ratios. There is
conclusive evidence of negative route long term impact on collective inequalities
mental health and human capital with the most vulnerable groups pay the highest
price on the positive and negative liberties with some policy makers arbitrary idea
of safety. We're going on to my second point in the spirit of debate let the seem
that there is a traitor more generally liberty still takes priority. Chronic
dropped by fifty percent on the philippines martial law miscellany made the trains
run safely on top victorian era women would choose to go to prison time nourished
are they came out on average three centimeters taller. The examples I've listed
where we've generally traded of liberty for safety of plainly bad environments to
be freedom to unfree I'm from matches people intuitively make tradeoffs that favor
liberty. But I'm an economist so naturally I find everything interesting happens at
the margins. In the context of cool vid treating of liberty for safety is a
detrimental decision that the worst off and society are being forced to make and
are burdened with for them giving up liberty and knocked down for a policy makers
idea of safety is disasters in the long term the pool young carries and fun. A real
women are stuck at the margins and are often forgotten about the freedom to get a
job to go to school and leave an abusive husband is a of they would make and I
would hope you would support team. But onto the future. Suddenly will tell you
about living is that it's perfectly okay to be realistic to see things for what
they are for full full of the all wrong and what they could be but in the twenty
one years I've been around the block with one pandemic under my belt I found this
to not be read prudent wait lists this forgive me onto the idea that margins. Move.
Each yeah thirty thousand to sixty thousand people die from the seasonal flu in the
us. Every yeah we could quarantine during the flu season but we don't why is that
all because emotional loss of liberty from doing so overwhelmingly outweighs the
marginal gains from the elimination of the flute. No this is obvious to us but that
window what is and what isn't is want a slip on it's very slippery we cannot afford
to gloss over the implications of this. Well a proposition will dismiss this as may
anarchist expulsion you don't need to be a basement libertarian to acknowledge them
devastating. I view own. Dad to acknowledge the devastation theoretical and
empirical evidence for restrictions or livesey being harder to remove that impose.
So I've outlined why we oppose the to resumes the first that it's not a meaningful
trade often made in first place and even if it is the argument to prioritize safety
so it's harder than it ought of as wielding a dyson lastly I want to the ground the
of bouquet. Oceans of this debate somewhat outside the ponder it's of the oxford
union. Altavista this debate what you straighten yourself adjusted clauses and rise
from the see you will walk through one of these two doors. The propositions
argument thumbs up with in law school work is an epic minorities that of suffer
disproportionately as a result was maiden was trade off is the right one losing and
proposition of this place he resigns us to an assumed definition and benchmark for
safety which let's be realistic will not be up to. You but will be up to the
government to decide. They need to be an east london hipster with the soul order
been size bred to advocate against giving up liberty for safety you really need to
ask yourself one question will boards keep you safe. Thank you. And.