Freedom Week: testimonies from participants
17 October 2024
SUGGESTED
Economic Theory
Uncategorized
17 October 2024
From 19 to 23 August 2024, the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Adam Smith Institute organised their annual Freedom Week at Cambridge University.
Freedom Week 2024 was an intellectually challenging and enriching experience. The range of topics was impressive. I came away having learnt a lot.
The week began with Kristian Niemietz talking about his research on the UK housing crisis. London’s housing prices far exceed every city (other than New York). However, I was surprised to learn that housing in Oxford is more expensive than Paris. Niemietz pointed out that Britain has plenty of space for housing and identified key policy changes such as changing to a rules-based planning system. Niemietz painted a gloomy, dire picture, highlighting the lack of popular support for these policies combined with the seemingly irreversible power of the ‘NIMBYs’.
I also enjoyed Steve Davies’ lectures on classical liberalism. Whereas Niemietz claimed that when a society has plentiful housing, the culture will essentially take care of itself, Davies made it clear to me that you have to continually make the argument for liberal ideas from its principles, no matter how well your economy is doing. This often means subordinating the economic argument to the moral one. I agree with Davies on this point. I still appreciate the role of the economy in society. I enjoyed being able to learn from both angles and would recommend Freedom Week to any young person who wants to learn more about classical liberalism.
Dr Snowdon’s critique of paternalism defended individual liberty, arguing that adults should be trusted to make their own choices, harmful or not.
Nanny-state policies like smoking bans undermine personal responsibility, and often unintentionally lead to black markets or regressive effects on lower-income populations. Accountability shifts from individuals to the government.
Snowdon advocated for education and personal choice over harsh regulation; true responsibility comes from autonomy, not government control.
However, the case of Singapore exists as a compelling devil’s advocate. Singapore’s strict paternalistic measures – such as heavy regulations on smoking, a grading system for sugary beverages, and bans on chewing gum – have contributed to its success in maintaining excellent public health and social order.
Paternalism here has led to some of the world’s highest life expectancies and lowest public health costs.
So, it can work when effectively implemented, and perhaps paternalism can be justified to protect social good over personal liberty.
Yet, this conclusion opens a deeper question: would people prefer to live in a free society where they can make their own mistakes (ergo, also face the consequences), or in a controlled society where safety and well-being are prioritised over personal liberty?
Singapore shows that while safety and social welfare can flourish under paternalism, it raises concerns about the trade-off between personal freedom and collective benefit.
Across a packed schedule of lectures Freedom Week gave me a crash course in liberalism from some of its most novel angles.
Victoria Bateman’s lecture turned established economic history on its head: I would never have guessed that 10% of merchants in 18th century Amsterdam were women. Bateman made an argument that I had never heard before, in a lecture where she demonstrated the significance of women’s liberation and ability to work for their own income to the boom in the British and Dutch economies in the 18th and 19th centuries.
One thing I didn’t expect from Freedom Week was a discussion of the intra-African big game market. Francis Vorhies described how changes in the definition of ‘conservation’ had made the ‘wildlife economy’ an untapped resource for many African states. I saw similarities to arguments made by campaign groups in the UK that shooting drives conservation, but here Vorhies set them in the vaster context of the African ‘big five’. Vorhies’ knowledge of the cultural and regulatory diversity that shapes the wildlife economy in Africa made this a talk that taught me a great deal about a topic I had hardly considered beforehand.
I could not recommend Freedom Week enough.
Freedom Week 2024 was an intellectually challenging and enriching experience. The range of topics was impressive. I came away having learnt a lot.
The week began with Kristian Niemietz talking about his research on the UK housing crisis. London’s housing prices far exceed every city (other than New York). However, I was surprised to learn that housing in Oxford is more expensive than Paris. Niemietz pointed out that Britain has plenty of space for housing and identified key policy changes such as changing to a rules-based planning system. Niemietz painted a gloomy, dire picture, highlighting the lack of popular support for these policies combined with the seemingly irreversible power of the ‘NIMBYs’.
I also enjoyed Steve Davies’ lectures on classical liberalism. Whereas Niemietz claimed that when a society has plentiful housing, the culture will essentially take care of itself, Davies made it clear to me that you have to continually make the argument for liberal ideas from its principles, no matter how well your economy is doing. This often means subordinating the economic argument to the moral one. I agree with Davies on this point. I still appreciate the role of the economy in society. I enjoyed being able to learn from both angles and would recommend Freedom Week to any young person who wants to learn more about classical liberalism.
-Oscar Gill-Lewis
Dr Snowdon’s critique of paternalism defended individual liberty, arguing that adults should be trusted to make their own choices, harmful or not.
Nanny-state policies like smoking bans undermine personal responsibility, and often unintentionally lead to black markets or regressive effects on lower-income populations. Accountability shifts from individuals to the government.
Snowdon advocated for education and personal choice over harsh regulation; true responsibility comes from autonomy, not government control.
However, the case of Singapore exists as a compelling devil’s advocate. Singapore’s strict paternalistic measures – such as heavy regulations on smoking, a grading system for sugary beverages, and bans on chewing gum – have contributed to its success in maintaining excellent public health and social order.
Paternalism here has led to some of the world’s highest life expectancies and lowest public health costs.
So, it can work when effectively implemented, and perhaps paternalism can be justified to protect social good over personal liberty.
Yet, this conclusion opens a deeper question: would people prefer to live in a free society where they can make their own mistakes (ergo, also face the consequences), or in a controlled society where safety and well-being are prioritised over personal liberty?
Singapore shows that while safety and social welfare can flourish under paternalism, it raises concerns about the trade-off between personal freedom and collective benefit.
-Siddhi Badole
Across a packed schedule of lectures Freedom Week gave me a crash course in liberalism from some of its most novel angles.
Victoria Bateman’s lecture turned established economic history on its head: I would never have guessed that 10% of merchants in 18th century Amsterdam were women. Bateman made an argument that I had never heard before, in a lecture where she demonstrated the significance of women’s liberation and ability to work for their own income to the boom in the British and Dutch economies in the 18th and 19th centuries.
One thing I didn’t expect from Freedom Week was a discussion of the intra-African big game market. Francis Vorhies described how changes in the definition of ‘conservation’ had made the ‘wildlife economy’ an untapped resource for many African states. I saw similarities to arguments made by campaign groups in the UK that shooting drives conservation, but here Vorhies set them in the vaster context of the African ‘big five’. Vorhies’ knowledge of the cultural and regulatory diversity that shapes the wildlife economy in Africa made this a talk that taught me a great deal about a topic I had hardly considered beforehand.
I could not recommend Freedom Week enough.
-Edward Teather
SHARE
