Freedom v safety?
Emma Hogan is the Americas Editor at The Economist. This means that she oversees the coverage of Latin America, the Caribbean and Canada.
Watch her summary about what’s happening in Ecuador.
Video not working? follow this link: https://vimeo.com/906792695/b7645515b0?
Comments (181)
Hello,
I think it is fair to restrict people and give them a curfew if it is necessary to keep them safe . I think this because young people who may not know the dangers of what is happening may go out at night and not realise . So making it a law acts a purpose of a deterrent . What I mean by a deterrent is if it is a law people will not want to go out as they would be arrested or fined . It could also show the public how bad the state of emergency is if is a curfew for everyone in the country .
Linking this back to the question I think it is right to restrict people freedom to keep them safe because it will ensure that the people which turns into victims should slow and less families will be effected by this emergency .
Actually I agree with the facts which you have stated in your above comment, which states that that the law of not going out at night were being made to protect the people during the emergency, but I have a question whereby the the people decides to go on strike so as for those you work during night time? What will be the reaction of the Government to the people? Thanks.
Hello witty_cheetah ,
Thank you for your question. I understand that it may be difficult for them
Hello witty_cheetah ,
Thank you for your question . I understand that it may be difficult for people that work or have jobs at night. A exception to the rule could be made if you are in a safe and secure environment such as a work place. If this exception happened there would be no need to strike as everyone can still get their income to provide for them and their families as well as keeping safe.
I disagree with imaginative attitude people aren't suppose to be restricted from freedom, because is there right to feel free in there country or nation.
On the other hand I agree that people should be restricted from freedom, because they might not know the danger that is out there, also a lot of do go out at night
I believe it is right to restrict people's freedom for safety as control over society is required to maintain order in state of emergency like this. Also protection of national security in itself is protection of basic rights. Emergencies are declared in a condition when tighter control is required and people aren't safe to be out when there is serious violence on streets. This is a breach of national security. Hence it is a protection of right to life. Keeping the society safe is the responsibility of state. Hence it may be a tough call for us to accept but it is necessary for us.
Secondly if we as citizen should be vigilant about state's action and about their rights and polity, they can keep check on limitations of our rights. This justifies the state's restriction and provide safeguards to citizen for which we need rationality and vigilance.
To be free is defined as the condition or right of being able to do whatever you want to, without being controlled or limited. while to be safe is defined as the condition of being protected from danger or risk. In my opinion safety is more important than freedom. Freedom is something that can be offered anywhere, absolutely anywhere we can think of. Safety is not offered anywhere and is a privilege. I understand that freedom is very important to humans because freedom give us the opportunity to do whatever we choose, but when it comes down to safety or freedom, safety is most important. Many people choose freedom over safety everyday and end up placing themselves in a position to end up in a dangerous situation. Many people have been through serious situations just because they felt like their freedom was more important than their safety, and I bet if they had another chance to think about the situation they would have went back and choose their safety over freedom. Safety is something you wish for not only yourself, but your family, friends, etc. There are many nefarious people in this world that do not care about others. So imagine giving the choice to do whatever they want without any consequences. Many people would be in danger. “The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe” meaning he would prefer safety over freedom to which I would agree on.
I disagree because Freedom itself can be a blessing as well as a problem it just depends on the way it is used. It is always better to be free than to be safe. One of the essential aspects of freedom is the fact that it allows individuals to take responsibility for their choices and actions, it also helps individuals to express themselves freely. In a society that prioritizes safety at the cost of freedom, personal responsibility often takes the backseat. Freedom is essential for a prosperous society.
Furthermore, freedom fosters creativity and economic growth. Research has shown that societies with greater economic freedom enjoy greater economic growth and higher standards of living.
I totally agree with you! Freedom is better than to be safe. Freedom gives you the power to choose for yourself how to act. Safety if it is very restrictive can make you feel stressed. We can even see that in order to achieve Freedom many countries have fought against restrictions, and even people fought about it even if they weren't safe.
Freedom is the right stand on your own for what you believe
a spirited argument, clever_redcurrant -- but what about the case where the government or the authorities know better than you do what is safe and what isn't? Or, as in the case of the pandemic, that _collective_ safety was increased if _individual_ rights were temporarily restricted?
Jason@ the Economist you are right about the pandemic. I would however like to notice something! It is something different collective freedom ( but in case of a war is impossible) and personal freedom. Moreover, in the pandemic I think that in my country the media has made it a daily issue and that stressed more the people. To make them feel insecure because of a new virus and bombarded them with how harmful and deadly it is, for me is controlled freedom.
Hi,
Freedom is great and all and I do not the disagree with the fact that the impact of freedom depends on how it is used, but still safety is very important like in the case of a pandemic like you said, like the Covid19 that we are still trying to recover from , or in a national state of emergency in the country , for example Fito one of the most renowned gangsters in Ecuador is missing from his prison cell , these are some of the reasons that people's freedom can be cut off or restricted. Like I said safety in some cases can require us giving up our freedom but it is not meant to make us think that we do not have the right to dictate what happens in our lives rather it is meant for our good and our wellbeing. But truth be told they are equally important in their own ways as a matter of fact they can coexist and complement each other to make a lot of great changes. In fact, freedom can improve safety by giving individuals the power to take charge for their own safety and well being.
In conclusion, safety and freedom are equally , they work hand in hand, but safety takes the lead in certain circumstances.
I urge all of us to strike a balance between these two things to ensure that both are accorded adequate respect and are upheld.
Thank you!
I can't say I agree with you there excited_music. You said freedom is better than safety. Freedom can't always lead to something positive you know. Like you said, freedom gives people the power to think for themselves and decide how they act. This won't really have positive effects in the future. Too much freedom can lead to pandemonium. You said many countries have fought against restrictions and yet these countries still have rules, restrictions and can declare a state of emergency when necessary to protect their citizens. Laws and rules that restrict people from doing certain things are only there to help them and stop them from doing things they think is right but will have disastrous effects in the future. Safety is the condition of being protected from danger while restriction is the limitation or control of someone. These two definitions really aren't that similar. Safety shouldn't be mistaken for restriction. Considering the future occurances, i think safety is better than freedom.
Well, I like your point it has made me to think differently. Freedom gives people the right to free expression,It allows us as individuals to create our own unique life. That’s why freedom is a basic human right without freedom we wouldn't truly be ourselves.Safety is equally important as well as freedom is.Safety is a condition of being protected from anything or situation which could likely cause danger, risk, or injury, it also protects people from harm and helps them feel secured. Considering what you have said I would go with safety rather than freedom.
Freedom actually gives people the right to free expression but it has its disadvantages as well as advantages. In order to create a state of equilibrium, each country has been endowed with a set of rules that guide the behavior of citizens in a nation. On the other hand, safety allows an individual to be free from threats, to have trust and support, to be able to relax wherever he or she is residing. I for one would choose "safety" to "freedom" because safety prevents us from dangers and unforeseen happenings in the society and world wide.
I don't fully agree with you positively or negatively but i some how disagree with you because some people would want to pick safe because citizens want to have a calm
heart and want to be sure that the country or state is free from criminals.
I agree with you @intelligent orchard, But in my opinion, my generation has been through some inhuman acts like rape, assault, abuse, and torture due to the word freedom, freedom can be described in two ways like the act of not being enslaved or put to jail and when humans can do what they feel is right or they can do them, but in this day's freedom is not the case because it has been misused. And for a child, we feel like when we are 18 we have all the freedom in the whole world but freedom is not given by age it is given by the level of understanding, some 10-year-olds are more understanding than an 18-year-old child. Nigeria was colonized for 60 years from 1900 to 1960 before they gained independence, so if a country waited a whole 60 years then who are we to force freedom? Freedom is not the right way to think because freedom makes people do some crazy things, so in my opinion, solitude makes humans think and become creative people like Nikola Tesla, Frida Kahlo, Georgia O'Keeffe Henry David Thoreau, and more people. In denouement to all I have said freedom is not given to those who don't know how to use it and I feel like everyone in my country misuses their freedom so is better to safe than sorry.
Hi!
I appreciate your perspective on the balance between freedom and safety. Your concern about too much freedom potentially leading to chaos is well articulated. The idea that rules and restrictions exist to protect people from actions that might have negative consequences in the long run is a valid point. You make a clear distinction between safety and restriction, highlighting that safety is about protection from danger, not necessarily imposing limitations on individuals. This differentiation helps in understanding that rules are in place for the greater good, aiming to safeguard everyone. Your focus on the ability of countries to declare a state of emergency when needed emphasizes the importance of having a balance between freedom and safety, recognizing that certain situations may require temporary restrictions for the well-being of citizens.
Overall, your feedback on the necessity of safety for future occurrences is well-reasoned and thought-provoking. You've presented a balanced view on the topic, acknowledging the importance of rules for the greater safety without undermining the value of freedom. I like your answer. Great job!
I assent to what you're saying based on the fact that if people are restricted it gives them a particular mindset that they are prisoners so one way or the other they will look for ways to escape for their freedom. But the main topic here is for safety yes, I support the fact that there should be restrictions. When comes to an issue of life and death just like Ecuador. And also "Safety is the most basic task of all without sense of safety, no growth can take place without safety, all energy goes to defense". But freedom is also one basic thing "Safety is good but I prefer freedom." E.B White.
I agree Freedom is equally important as much as safety is. Freedom is being able to live a free life,it also gives people a sense of responsibility while safety is a condition of being protected from danger or any form of harm. A lot of people believe that safety is better than freedom. I am one of those who believe that safety is better than freedom because safety helps people to be free if there is problem in the country people would not be able to express themselves freely.Safety is more important than freedom.
I strongly agree with you because, the controversy between freedom or safety is that freedom can have no consequences to our actions, but safety can protect with consequences. Freedom itself can be a blessing, yet without a sense of security or protection there will be chaos because some people cannot handle so much power into their hands. As in any emergency situation, the most important rule is to always think SAFETY. Following basic safety precautions helps to keep you and other bystanders safe, and assists the trained first responders in identifying and controlling the release. “The safety of the people should be the highest law".
I agree because it is better to restrict people's freedom to keep them safe than for them to get injured. We have been put under alot curfews in our community when violence errupts either for the entire day or when the sun sets until morning. When that happens it stops people from going out to commit crimes in the dark. The only problem is when you don't have enough provisions at home you will be hungry. That said curfews are very useful in keeping us safe than letting us be free and can be harmed.
Yes, I concur with your opinion steadfast_effort because a popular quote states that "it's better to be safe than sorry."
So, I personally support the motion which says, "It is better restrict people’s freedom if it’s to keep them safe." I say that because firstly if one isn't safe there won’t freedom to enjoy at all.
However, in my own opinion I say that it will be better to restrict freedom by implementations of curfew and other security methods to keep citizens safe because during states of emergencies such as, virus outbreaks or during crisis periods harm could be caused.
For instance, during the COVID-19 outbreak the government needed to take some safety precautions to ensure the safety of the people and prevent them from harm and keep away contact from the virus.
So, in conclusion to ensure safety in the country sacrifices need to be made by the citizens and the governmental bodies.
Thank you!!!
I agree with triumphant_ snow because safety comes with a lot of of sacrifices including restriction of movement around a country. It is for their own good and it is in order to keep them safe from danger and harm and the only way to do it is to keep them in their various homes.
I agree because... would you rather like to be free to unconsciously walk into your doom or be denied your right to freedom to be safe? It is a risky decision to choose freedom over safety. Sometimes we are denied our right to freedom to guarantee our right to safety and life. If you aren't safe and alive, how can you enjoy your right to freedom? Safety is freedom to life because in your freedom, you're offered the freedom to live. The fact that not everything goes our way doesn't mean we aren't free. The fact we're unhappy doesn't mean our right to freedom has been abused or violated.
I agree with triumphant_snow that people should stay in their houses as many are in danger and going outside may cause harm. In my opinion, it is the government's responsibility to protect its people. Although our freedom is limited, it has not been taken away completely. I believe that both safety and freedom are important for a state to thrive. While some may think it is unfair, restrictions are necessary for the greater good. Research has shown that crime rates increase by almost twice at night compared to the day. Choosing freedom over safety can be dangerous. An example of this is, during pandemics, failing to wear masks and not following quarantine measures can result in the spread of disease to other countries. A society with too much freedom can encourage unhealthy habits like smoking and drinking.The curfew only lasts for 60 days, so it is not forever. Therefore, I believe that limiting people's freedom is necessary to promote safety and well-being.
I agree with your comment, triumphant snow because what will be the use of freedom if the people just end up getting hurt, in Nigeria we had detrimental security issues before .It was a very horrible time and I don't want to dig deep into it for the sake of younger ones who are also chatting, but through out those times peoples movements were restricted so to avoid some more casualties ,there was also this anime called shingeki no kyojin (attack on titan) were the people had to live behind walls for there own safety and for the sake of there lives.
Thank you for being respectful to younger Topical Talkers.
I do agree before freedom we need to consider or safety being safe and secure is a very important thing for every country and if citizens are not safe then what is the whole Essen's of being free because many people would be hiding because of constant fear anything could happen at any time so no one would have freedom.
I agree because... In the case of Ecuador the government is trying his best to make sure his citizens are safe and in this case gangs would be targeting airports, borderlines transport services because they know that people wouldn't try to escape Ecuador.
I disagree with this comment. You have to think about the consequences of citizens having little freedom. Take Cuba, for example. The citizens in Cuba used to have little freedom. They had little to no contact with the outside world. They'd even be shot or jailed just for protesting. Having little to no freedom in place for freedom is a terrible place to live in. Especially if a dictator possibly gets elected. Then what happens? Nobody can do anything about it.
I agree because... Restricting citizens freedom during a emergency is often a measure taken to ensure public safety. During an outbreak and an escape by a major criminal ( fito), there might be a need for temporary restrictions to ensure public safety in the country e.g fito a wanted criminal escaped from a highly oriented prison and based on Ecuador, do the government expect the citizens should have the freedom of movement while they are trying to catch fito and his gang, something unexpected might happen to the in that process. So restricting people movement or freedom is right thing in order to ensure everyone is safe.
Thank you!
I concur because curfews are measures taken to limit people's freedom of movement in order to protect them or to make sure they are safe when a potentially dangerous event occurs outside in a community. My society has experienced numerous curfews due to various incidents of violence, kidnapping, pandemics, etc. Even though my country experienced a severe curfew and job losses during the pandemic and people were left starving and unsure of how to get food, I still believe that limiting people's freedoms is necessary to ensure their safety.
EXCITED TO SEE CORRECTIONS
THANK YOU
Just imagine you are having a picnic in a paranormal wooded area. Now, freedom is like dancing around the bushes, feeling the breeze, and having a blast. Safety, on the other hand, is having a cozy spot with friends, away from prickly timber and wandering creatures.
So, it's a piece like existence, right? Freedom is the adventure, the exhilaration, however protection is the warm hug that makes sure the journey does not get too wild. It's like a seesaw – an excessive amount of freedom, and it'd tip over into chaos; too much safety, and it becomes a snooze fest. Finding the right balance is like developing a really perfect dance between the fun of freedom and the comforting include of safety.
In the cease, it is about enjoying the mystical woodland with out getting misplaced or tripping over roots – a concord among freedom and protection that makes the entire picnic of existence even more delightful.
You've done a great job in helping us visualise freedom and safety here.
Great metaphor indeed, and especially the need for balance!
In my opinion anything that can be done to ensure the safety of people around you should be done even if it makes you seem like a bad person. Freedom refers to a state of independence where you can do what you like without any restriction by anyone while Safety is the state of being "safe", the condition of being protected from harm or other danger. Everyone has the right to move around their country or any other place at anytime comfortable with them, but if it comes with the cost of loosing lives then it should be restricted. Freedom itself can be a blessing, yet without a sense of security or protection there will be chaos. Without freedom security is somewhat useless. However, without security freedom is suicide. I feel that Ecuador president made a right and wise decision to restrict the peoples movement as it shows he is concerned about his citizens. The restriction of peoples movement at that particular time(when criminals usually operate) would reduce the risk of citizens getting into dangerous situations. We citizens should try to understand the point of view of the government and try our best to follow their instructions.
Hi,
I agree with you, during one of my civic education classes we treated a topic that stated situations in which citizens' rights are infringed and one point was that a citizens' right to freedom of movement may be infringed in cases of a state of emergency in your area, state or country and this really caught my attention, in my own view anything that needs to be done to ensure the safety of citizens should be done, because the country's objective or main at that point is to keep each and every citizen safe. This can be done by declaring curfews, lockdowns and also stationing the securities at places that are likely to be attacked or targeted , but that doesn't mean that other areas shouldn't be put into consideration. The government should be in charge of making the safety of the citizens possible in every way and as you said the president made a decision which is restricting or limiting citizens' movement and honestly I do agree with you that he did the right thing , but that shouldn't be the only thing that should be done, at this point the military or the other defence units should be preparing right now and they shouldn't prepare based on only a particular aspect rather they should prepare and get ready for any situation they may find themselves in, they should prepare in a way that nothing will hit them unaware because you never know the plans of the enemy and honestly having a vulnerable moment or having their guard down at this moment will really be life threatening.
Thank you!
I agree with you, if there is a need of curfew in the country to keep them safe then they should not be any chaos caused by the public, it is for their own safety not for the safety of others, and when it comes to freedom, they are still free to do what ever they want since the curfew is held at night, whether it a party or a picnic , they have the whole day to do so. In my opinion, their freedom was not pampered with but they might think it was because they are human beings after all, everyone has their own point of view and opinion. And also safety comes first in all cases .
Do you think that restricting freedom in such a way is a temporary solution to a problem or simply a despearte measure in difficult times?
Yes, it is right to restrict the freedom of the people when the country is in a state of emergency, this is because when a country is in danger or when a country is experiencing riot, wars and many other things, the best thing to do is to restrict the movement of the people so that the citizens would not get injured or killed in the process of the war.
I know that it will not be easy for the citizens to abide by this law of restrictions but at the same time we should understand that the only our lives can be saved is when we obey this law and stay at home because definately the president wants the Best for his people that is why he has to make this law.
Emergency can't be declared if the matter is not serious, so we most know that it must be a serious matter for the president to order the peoples not to leave their house from 11pm to 5am. And also we should remember that heaven only help those who help themselves so when the president orders us should try to abide by the law and also we should no that he wants the Best for us and restrictions is very necessary in some cases like this.
THANK YOU.....
Who gets to decide if the matter is serious enough?
Hi !,
I think the decision of whether a situation is serious enough to declare a state of emergency and impose restrictions on the freedom of people is typically made by the government or the president of the country because they rely on expert advice and analysis of the situation at hand along with the potential risks and consequences so I feel they will be better to make an informed decision than citizens who might have gotten the knowledge about the situation from media or article which have a high chance to be exaggerated or manipulated data (btw which are very common nowadays in the medical field) or even fake (not always,i am just saying there is a high chance)Anways the 'Ultimate goal' is to ensure the safety and well-being of the citizens and the country as a whole and not for individuals..
Thank you so much for that question aunty Tiff, I would like to go straight to answering your question. I don't think that there is a president that will just wake up one day and decide to declare for the citizens, what I'm 8 trying to say, I'm trying to say that a president will not wake up and to make caricature or decide to mock his subject to go into lockdown without any reason, so the case must be a big one for the president to declare lockdown and as for will decide if the matter is serious, it is us the citizens that are looking at the situation of things will know that it is serious enough.
I will like to support this with an example, during end SARS which happened in my country Nigeria, when it gets serious, the president was not even the one that told the citizens to go on lockdown, when they looked and saw that it is no longer a joke, they on there own went on lockdown till when the riot ceased.
In conclusion, I will say that it is both the work of the president and the citizens to decide that the matter is serious, and when the president declares a lockdown, we the citizens should try to obey the law because every responsible president will always want the best for his citizens.
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION........
Freedom can be good but also bad, everyone should have their own freedom just like the way every citizen has their "RIGHTS" but some law breakers do with they are best in doing and can cause harm to so people so I advice that their should be restriction on freedom , and the safety of people should be concentrated more on. In different countries we have law breakers that can cause problems in the country and can also risk the lives of citizens such people should be reformed and punished.
I agree because... in a country we’re the is a serious war like in 2022 when Russia and Ukraine had a war it was so serious that the other countries that were in the university of Russia had to come and carry their student back to their country , that was how serious the war between Russia and Ukraine was so with my opinion I will say that safety is better than freedom
I agree because... in a country we’re the is a serious war like in 2022 when Russia and Ukraine had a war it was so serious that the other countries that were in the university of Russia had to come and carry their student back to their country , that was how serious the war between Russia and Ukraine was so with my opinion I will say that safety is better than freedom
Greetings.
Freedom is being able to think, say and do what you want and to make life as you really want. Safety is being protected without any fear of danger and risk. Safety is always more important than freedom when fear takes over.
Yes, it is right to restrict people's freedom if it's to keep them secure.
Those people who feel fear and, in the name of fear, they are free to choose what is most important to them, are free to choose who they are - those people don’t need to fight for freedom. They are already free. They are always free, regardless of different circumstances. But freedom is all about risks. Risk takers are those people who values FREEDOM more than safety. Some restrictions and prohibitions needed to be safe from different problems and it reduces the risks of getting into difficult situations.
Thank you.
I ain't satisfies to know restrict people's freedom and keep them safe is in option . Because We human aren't fortune teller to know what will happen in future . People roaming around in street and they kidnapped or accident happens. Its so scaring to know . We know someone will rescue them but prevention is better than cure . In one hand restrict people's freedom is worse but in other hand being at home don't means that everything will go with flow. I hope nothing problem occurs in any time . But in my conviction it was really hard to choose between above druthers.
Thank You !
I agree that it is really difficult to argue for either side of this topic. There are strong arguments for both sides and I think everyone can agree we all want freedom yet to make sure everyone is safe and doesnt need to worry about getting kidnapped or anything else that is scary.
I am choosing yes, but yet at same time, no. This is due to the fact that, since it's concerning an individual's safety, is right, but at same time restring their freedom to certain things knowing fully well, it's their right. I believe it is right to restrict people's freedom for safety as control over society is required to maintain order in state of emergency like this.
I'd say anything that can be done to ensure the safety of people around you should be done even if it makes you seem like a bad person because when we look closer, it's for the benefit of the individual concerned. And to think of it, emergency can't be declared if the matter is not serious, so we most know that it must be a serious matter for there to be restrictions in individual's movement.
I believe it's very much right to restrict one's freedom for their safety. Some may want to put freedom first not putting in mind that it's most at times that freedom they want that causes danger. Let's say now I'm like I want to be free and should be left to go out and run round the streets for as long as I like. This is me forgetting the fact that first of all, this country is very dangerous, left alone the world, it could be on that street where I want to be left to roam that I can get kidnapped or something bad. Let's see Nigeria today, if it's possible for people to get attacked in the comfort of their homes, what are we going to say about being free to go out and "explore". In fact I'm pretty much sure it's not only in Nigeria such things happen. I can only imagine one crying about his/her freedom and when he/she finally receives it, the results is terribly bad.
Basically, the point I'm trying to make is that if restricting the freedom of we individuals will improve and ensure our safety then sure, why not. Seeing the situation of our world today, we shouldn't be centered/focused on being free but we should learn to put safety first.
Thank you!
If there is no safety, there cannot be freedom. It is only in a place that is safe, that people would not be restricted to move. Some people may look at curfew as violating their rights, but in the real sense, they are protecting people so that later they can have their freedom. The idea of curfew is actually beneficial to the people in order to avoid any adverse effects that could later affect them. It is not right to restrict people's freedom but in this case, I would agree with that ideology. In a way this is just helping people to help themselves. In a state of emergency there should be restriction of movement because "better safe than sorry".
Hello!
I agree with you gutsy_blackcurrent. Freedom can only be achieved when one is safe. Can you imagine if the curfew had not been placed in the COVID-19 pandemic? . We will have enjoyed " a fake kind of freedom" .The restricted freedom was to our benefit as it limited the spread and transfer of diseases from one person to another.
Taking this into the context of the Ecuadorian crisis this restriction in their freedom will curtail a nd allow the government to take actions to effectively combat this violence that plunged them into a state of emergency.
So what I am saying is that definitely right to freedom is a basic human right but this right and all other rights can only function when the most fundamental human right is preserved THE RIGHT TO LIFE. So I agree with you and say that the Ecuadorian government did what it taught was best for its people and I think " without safety there cannot be freedom".
Thank You!!!
I agree because some people would want to be stubborn during a curfew. During curfews, measures should be taken in order to keep these people in check.
In order to ensure adherence to the curfew, law enforcement conducts patrols and establishes checkpoints, effectively mitigating violations. Initially, individuals receive warnings to acquaint them with the regulations. However, continuous disregard may lead to penalties such as monetary fines, community service, or legal proceedings, contingent upon the gravity of the offense. This approach fosters widespread comprehension of the directives and enhances safety measures throughout the curfew duration, safeguarding the populace from potential risks and disturbances.
In the vicinity where I reside, a curfew was imposed owing to security concerns. Despite numerous warnings and the gravity of the situation, there were individuals who stubbornly chose to disregard the curfew regulations. Tragically, one such individual, whom I had mentioned earlier, met a fatal end due to his flagrant disobedience. His tragic demise serves as a sobering reminder of the dire consequences that can befall those who recklessly defy essential safety measures.
Thank you.
Hello!
The major reason or duty of a government or leaders is to serve and protect the people and the fact that the people trust the government enough to hand over their political rights to a government means the government has to do everything it takes to protect the people and their rights.
Categorically the right to life is the first and foremost basic human life after which other rights such as the right to freedom of movement and the right to fair hearing come in. This being said it means that if one's right to life is protected it means that all other rights are still obtainable.
The escape of the renowned criminal "Fito" sparked violence such as the inter-group conflict in the country of Ecuador causing a threat to the life of the Ecuadorian people and the lives of people around the globe.
This threat caused the Ecuadorian government to declare a state of emergency and also limit the movement of the Ecuadorian people to limit the movement of "Fito'' and his gang members thereby reducing and limiting the threat.
Based on this I think it is unquestionable and it is the right decision of the Ecuadorian government to restrict the right of the people(the right of freedom of movement) to protect the main human right "The right to life".
Thank You!!!
While having a state of emergency, it would be right to restrict freedom if it is for the sake of the citizen. Everything must be sorted of with balance, so the freedom and safety also should be balanced on my perspective. But sometimes the balance is disturbed on emergencies or accidents. On such cases, some freedom are restricted for better safety. If people are just living normally without disturbance in balance, an accident might occur. It would be the fault of government of not awaring people on such dangerous and violent condition. We citizen are too fragile and easier to hurt, if the freedom is not restricted, the safety for us wouldn't be enough. So, it is crucial we support the government by following their policies, to re-capture the convict faster and effectively, so that the balance would be restored.
At last, I would say Freedom and safety must sorted with balance but if balance is disturbed, we should follow the government policies to restore the balance quickly and I would rather more say that if freedom is restricted we should understand the situation and co-operate with government like we did it before during the infection of COVID-19
That's a tough question! It's a balance between ensuring public safety and respecting individual freedoms. While it's important to keep people safe, it's also crucial to uphold the principles of justice and human rights. Restricting someone's freedom should only be done when absolutely necessary, such as when they pose a significant risk to themselves or others. It's a complex issue that requires careful consideration and a fair legal system.
It's a complex issue with no easy solution. Balancing safety and personal freedom is a delicate task that requires careful consideration. It's important to ensure that any restrictions on freedom are justified, necessary, and proportionate to the potential risks. By respecting individual rights and finding alternative approaches, we can strive to create a society that prioritizes both safety and personal freedom.
On one hand, keeping people safe is a top priority, and sometimes that means limiting certain freedoms. But on the other hand, personal freedom is a fundamental right that should be protected. Striking the right balance between safety and freedom is definitely a challenge.
Some argue that limiting freedom to ensure safety is justified in certain situations, like when it comes to preventing harm or protecting society. However, it's important to strike a balance and ensure that individual rights and liberties are respected. Finding alternative solutions that promote safety while preserving freedom is always worth exploring. What are your thoughts on this? 🤔
In a situation of insecurity such as the one Ecuador is facing, it is logical reasonable or sensible to stay safe and avoid moving about late at night or the early hours of the morning and everybody knows that, everybody loves their life and nobody wants to die hence, everyone will play safe so, i don't see the neccesity for a declaration of a state of emergency. The government should bring in to consideration exceptional situations where people need to gain access to ceratin vital amenities late at night {for example hospitals} and other pressing situations. A state of emergency is a temporary suspention of the constitution which implies that citizen's freedom is denied which also comprises their fundamental Human Rights. I'm not saying it is wrong to declare a state of emergency what i'm saying is ''Is it really neccessary in this situation'' As for me i'm not in full support of that motion. As I stated ealier everyone knows the times that they are in and will use their sense guard their life so, the declaration of the state of emergency is quite unecessary in this situation besides, it will just give the criminals an alternative time to attack given that everyone one will be home during a specified period. Trading your freedom for safety is a serious matter and I don't think it is needed in this situation.
Yes,it is right. Restricting people's freedom is acceptable if it is done with the intention of keeping them safe.
The primary goal of restricting freedom in the interest of safety is to protect the well-being and lives of individuals and communities. In situations where there is a clear and imminent threat to public safety, such as during a natural disaster or a public health crisis, national problem temporary restrictions may be necessary to mitigate harm and ensure the greater good. In some cases, individual freedoms may need to be limited to strike a balance between individual rights and the welfare of the broader society. This is based on the principle that individual rights are not absolute and must be weighed against the potential harm caused to others.
Decisions to restrict freedoms are often made based on expert advice from professionals in relevant fields such as public health, law enforcement, or national security. These experts assess the risks and benefits and provide recommendations to safeguard public safety.
It is important to note that restrictions on freedom should generally be temporary and proportionate to the level of threat.
It is crucial to ensure that any restrictions on freedom are justified, necessary, and subject to scrutiny and oversight to prevent potential abuses
Just like fearless_mandarin I also voted yes. Yes, as it makes sense to impose restrictions on movement to protect citizens of the nation, their communities, and society at large. A limitation on movement implies that individuals are unable to assemble to start a riot, wreak havoc, or destroy lives and property. Furthermore, it is essential to remember that restrictions on movement will have an impact on the nation's economy, accessibility to services, and standard of living.
Hi Everyone,
I would like to begin by saying that to me the question of whether it's right to hold down people's freedom for the sake of safety is confidential and depends on individual views,ethical thoughts and cultural values..I feel like there's no generally applicable "yes" or "no" answer to this question because different people and societies may count the significance of individual freedom against the collective need for safety in contrasting ways like different cultures and people have different views on balancing individual freedom and collective safety,For ex-Some societies prioritize individual freedom and allow citizens to make their own choices,even if it puts others at risk on the other hand some societies prioritize collective safety and use strict regulations and surveillance to ensure safety for everyone..The rightness of similar restrictions oft involves careful consideration of the circumstances like the severity of the threat and the effectiveness of the actions in managing the situation..Yes,safety is a priority but how much individual freedom are we willing to offer for it?...There are several ethical and moral principles at play but sometimes,I do think it is necessary to put restrictions on individual freedoms during emergencies like in public health emergencies by implementing quarantine to prevent the spread of disease and best examples are COVID 19 pandemic and Influenza(Flu),in Terrorist Attacks by conducting security checks at airports to prevent it,in Civil Riots by putting a curfew to prevent violence(especially property damage),Environmental Hazards,in Natural Disasters and so on....This can help protect the public's well-being and safety...But others may argue that individual liberties should always come first..So,to conclude I would say the key is to strike a 'balance' between protecting society and conserving individual freedoms like I mentioned before the decision to put freedom restrictions should be based on the circumstances,severity of the trouble and the effectiveness of the measures taken to address it...I feel in societies,transparency and accountability are crucial...Citizens should be part of the decision-making process and engage in debates about the necessity and duration of freedom restrictions...This allows for a well-informed and democratic decision-making process that respects individual liberties while guaranteeing public safety...I am keen on hearing your opinions...Thank you!!
I agree because... Deciding if it is right to limit people's freedom to keep them safe isn't just a yes or no answer. It depends on a lot of things, like how serious the danger is, if the restriction actually helps, and it is fair for everyone. Sometimes, there are rules or limits in place to protect everyone, especially during emergencies or when there's a big health issue. But it's also important to make sure these rules are fair and not too strict. We have to consider what's fair to everyone and ensure that the rules makes sense and genuinely help keep Us safe. It's a balancing act, but it's essential to always think about what best for everyone involved.
That's a thoughtful response! You're right that deciding whether to limit people's freedom to keep them safe isn't always a straightforward decision. Sometimes, rules and limits are necessary to protect everyone, especially during emergencies or when there are big health concerns. But it's also important to make sure that these rules are fair and reasonable for everyone. It's all about finding the right balance between safety and freedom. Great job thinking about what's best for everyone involved! Thanks, polite_king for your perspective
You're welcome! I'm glad you found my response helpful. It's essential to understand that rules and limits exist to keep everyone safe and healthy. Just like how we wear helmets when riding bikes or seatbelts in cars, sometimes we need to follow rules to protect ourselves and others. However, it's also important to question and discuss these rules to make sure they're fair and make sense for everyone. Sometimes, rules might seem strict, but they're in place for a good reason. As we grow older, we'll learn more about why certain rules are necessary and how we can contribute to making our communities safer and happier for everyone. Keep asking questions and thinking critically, because understanding why things are the way they are is an important part of growing up. Great job exploring these ideas!
Freedom is a fundamental human right that allows individuals to live their lives without external constraints or limitations. It encompasses the ability to make choices, express opinions, and pursue personal goals. However, it is essential to understand that absolute freedom is not always practical or desirable. In some instances, it may become necessary to limit people's freedom to ensure the safety of the community as a whole.
For example, restricting freedom of movement during a pandemic outbreak may be necessary to prevent the spread of the disease. Similarly, imposing speed limits on roads can help prevent accidents and reduce fatalities. These measures may seem restrictive, but they are necessary to protect public health and safety.
When it comes to people's safety, we must do everything in our power to prevent harm. Unfortunately, there are some instances where people are kidnapped while out on the street. In these situations, some people may argue that restricting freedom is necessary to keep people safe. While it's important to protect people, we must also remember that everyone has the right to live freely. Any measure that limits freedom should be justified by clear evidence and reasons. It's crucial to find balance between safety and freedom.
I don't believe it is right to restrict people's freedom even if it is to keep them safe, as freedom is one of our basic human rights. I think that curfews like this can be set up as suggestions to the public, but they shouldn't be made mandatory. Some people may run into situations where they need to go to hospital and in an emergency like this they would be stuck at home not being able to do anything expect sit there and wait till the morning. It would be important to help people understand why there is this recommended curfew, but in the end people will end up going out if they want to regardless of the curfew.
This idea of freedom is something that most people have and to take away even a little bit of this freedom would be dehumanising.
Hi accurate_outcome, you raise an interesting point. Here the government is restricting the freedom of those who are not responsible or part of the crime. However, during the Covid-19 pandemic, much of the world was restricting people's freedoms to keep them safe including here in the UK. Do you think there are parallels between the two situations?
I think that there are similarities between the situations, however during the Covid - 19 pandemic this lockdown was used to keep other people safe. Whereas, in this instance it is to do with keeping yourself safe and I believe that you should have the freedom in what you are doing that can only harm yourself, instead of during the pandemic when you going out may not only harm yourself, but other people as well. I think as far as Covid - 19, it was less restricting people's freedom and it was for the benefit of the entire globe to help stop the spread of the virus.
Hello!
I strongly disagree with your comment. Freedom is a fundamental human right but do you not think that having too much freedom is a bad thing? Take for instance if governments around the world did not limit the restrictions on their people do you think we will be out of the COVID-19 pandemic? I think not. Most of us practice an indirect system of rule where all our political power is given to the government meaning that in this sense most of us don't have true freedom where we can do what we want but sometimes this true freedom has to be taken away from us to protect us from things that are not meant to affect us but they do because of someone else's or a group of people's hate, greed or other selfish reasons.
Yes, it may and it is really hard for us to give up this right of ours as we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic because it hindered and disrupted our usual patterns of life and disrupted many development processes but it also gave rise to some new ways of doing things such as E-learning.
So rather than seeing the bad side of the restriction of their right to freedom of movement, I think we should take a look at the positives in this bleek and gloomy situation in which all we can do is endure, pray, and act.
Thank You!!!
I see where you are coming from, however I don't think there is something as too much freedom. I think it is down to what to do with the freedom you are given. It is down to the individual person to decide what to do with their given freedom, for instance if someone decides to smile at a stranger or help an old person across the road are good things you can do with your freedom. However if you leave someone who is in danger then that is a negative thing to do with your freedom. So in conclusion there is no such ting as too much freedom.
Oh my God,
I almost choked at the sight of the video; it is scary to see something like that happen. But I have my say in this matter and I certainly think safety is comes first even if it is taking freedom away. I think it is right to make a curfew. It ensures the safety of the citizens. Would you rather be in an open box and will die or will be in a closed box, yet you will survive? Freedom is not always the best, but safety is.
I strongly agree with you because safety comes first in everything to me. This is because just imagine that every morning you wake up, there is a fire. I am sure you will not feel safe. However, if you had freedom over safety, you will have the ability to make certain actions that might harm you.
According to me, freedom is the absence of necessity, coercion, liberation from slavery or from the power of another. When you feel not safe at road or are in a threat but still want to go outside calling it as your freedom, then we can't call this as freedom. It's against freedom. Freedom is basically like feeling safe and free to do anything without creating hindrance for others. In my point of view, here I will see the word restriction as savior of freedom. People in Ecuador are in a restriction to protect their freedom in a sense. When it comes to freedom, the first thing that matters is the safety. And doing something for protection can never be against freedom. The government has set curfew to ensure the safety of this citizen and also to protect them and their freedom. Others might think that by setting curfew government is harming the freedom of others, but if you think about it then you will be able to understand. Which one will you choose, a life with full freedom without protection or a life with protection and freedom? Definitely you will choose the life with protection and freedom. That's the case happening in Ecuador. What matter most is the safety of the citizens! I will not term the curfew as restriction instead I will say it's right to set rules to protect people's freedom and keep them safe. Let's see it in a positive way. We can see the curfew as a rule to protect freedom of people and their lives.
I believe that this decision was made for the best interest of the people. It is true that the fundamental human rights of individuals are meant to be respected, but when it concerns their safety, the government shouldn't compromise their citizens safety where and when necessary.
The essence of curfews being imposed in any place is to control and restrict movement so as to curb or control crime. For the case of Ecuador, this is only necessary since the said person could pose as a threat to the well-being of several citizens and so,they are trying their possible best to prevent a great disaster from springing up.
I believe restricting people's freedom in some situations is beneficial as it can help to maintain public order and security, by discouraging protests, riots and violence. Safety is the most important thing for Ecuador as safety is not a cage that locks you in but a shield that protects you from harm. safety is a guide to freedom and freedom is the goal of safety. Moreso, I believe Safety should be a priority as it is not a chain that binds you down but a rope that pulls you up from the dark. Restricting people's freedom in order to achieve safety can be a way of promoting common good and preventing harm to others. A great example is getting vaccinated and wearing masks, which are not personal choices but also moral duties that show respect and care. Restricting freedom through curfews is justified as it reduces the opportunities and motivations for people to commit crimes. It also increases the deterrence and detection of crimes, by allowing the military and police to patrol the streets and search for Fito and his associates. This restriction can help to regain the balance of a good society in the long run.
I personally believe that it is right to restrict freedom and movement if it is for the cause of safety. The curfew has been set because of the present state of emergency. Yes, people might want to move around, visit some places or even go to work, but they must keep in mind that not everything is settled right now. A state of emergency is a situation of national danger in which a government suspends normal constitutional procedures in order to regain control. It is mostly declared due to civil unrest or insecurity, financial or economic crisis and natural disasters. In this case, it was declared due to the civil unrest. I think that it is okay to restrict movement after all, it is for the safety of the citizens. The government is trying to get things back under control and they can't do that efficiently if everyone is walking around and is prone to impending danger. I think that the declaration of a curfew is for their own good.
Freedom is being able to think, say, and do what you want – to live your life as you please. Safety is being protected from harm – to live your life without fear of danger. Though people may uphold freedom as an ultimate virtue, it’s limited in a society. You can’t have absolute freedom because it takes away from the safety and the freedom of others. If anyone could do whatever they wanted, and they chose to hurt and kill, that restricts someone else’s freedom to live as they please.
In conclusion, Safety provides with a sense of security when freedom cannot. It is the biggest and most important need people need to survive for in life. Without safety, there can be no peace of mind and ultimately no complete happiness.
It’s right to restrict people’s freedom to keep them safe; however, like all things this should be handled in moderation. If there is too much restriction, it turns into a dictatorship and people become uneasy. If there is too much freedom, there are possibilities of overthrowing the government, anarchy, or higher crime rates. What comes with restriction are people feeling oppressed. Using an old apothecary scale, consider how the scale would favor to one side if we focus too much on restriction and the same with freedom. But if we find the right balance between each, the scale balances on each side and we are left with a union between the two that can help keep people safe, and also allow the the ability to have a say.
Freedom is the state of being free or being at liberty while on the other hand, safety means freedom from loss,harm,danger or risk.From my point of view,safety is more important than freedom.Imagine this,you are in a zoo and you are free or at liberty to go into the lion,tiger and snakes cage,would you rather risk your life and enter the lions den because you are at liberty to do so or would you choose to stay out of the cages and be safe.I hope that with this point of mine,I have convinced you that safety is more important than freedom.
I think that it is right because the First Amendment guarantees our right to free expression and free association , which means that the government does not have the right to for bid us from saying what we like and writing what we like; we can form clubs and organizations, and take par tin demonstrations and rallies .
The question of whether it is right to restrict people's freedom for safety reasons is subjective and often depends on the context, the severity of the situation, and the measures in place. In times of crisis, such as a state of emergency, governments may impose restrictions to protect public health and safety. The balance between individual freedoms and public safety is a complex ethical and legal consideration.
Governments typically justify such restrictions by arguing that they are necessary to prevent the spread of disease, maintain public order, or respond to other emergencies. However, it is crucial to ensure that any restrictions imposed are proportionate, temporary, and respect fundamental human rights.
Public opinion on such measures can vary, and discussions around the legitimacy and necessity of restrictions often involve weighing the potential harm to individuals against the greater good of protecting public health. Ultimately, the appropriateness of restrictions depends on the specific circumstances and the extent to which they adhere to legal and ethical principles.
In summary, the appropriateness of restricting people's freedom during a state of emergency hinges on the principles of necessity, proportionality, transparency, and adherence to human rights standards. It remains an ongoing dialogue between the government, the public, and ethical considerations as societies navigate crises and work towards a balance that safeguards both individual freedoms and collective well-being.
Hi,
In my opinion to protect people actions that commit restriction of freedom is justifiable but is not right either.
The curfew from 11am to 5pm to prevent crimes such as robbery, mugging, kidnapping etc. is okay as it protects the lives of many people. But these curfews reduce the amount of customers in local shops such as fruits, bakery, coffee shops etc. and prevents people from buying these things fresh. And curfews like these set by the government is actually theoretically useless as now criminals actually know which time is best for them to commit their acts.
Therefore, its best to not put curfews like these and instead increase the protection that polices offer and make polices armed and be on paroles to scan the cities and local markets more to prevent crime rates and protect citizens much better while continuing the flow of markets. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Therefore, instead of governments try and stop crime and ultimately fail but rather protect the order of peace, safety and justice.
Thank you.
Hi, you raised an interesting point here about the potential loss of revenue of shops due to curfews. Do you think that there are situations where it is justified for the government to restrict the operation of businesses to achieve other policy goals which they consider to be more important? We have seen lockdowns during COVID-19 where shops were ordered to close to prevent the spread of the disease.
The citizens of Ecuador should not complain about losing their freedom because their lives are at risk. Gangs don't give a second thought to whoever they are harming. It is better they stay home because they will do anythig to you regardless of who you are. In my country, there are a lot of criminals and the people of my country know how ruthless they are. They end people's lives without any facial expression. They don't care about who the person is. If something like this were to happen in my country, safety would be my number one priority, both of mine and my family. People that think freedom is more important need to be educated on the dangers of criminals around the world.
The question of restricting people's freedom for safety reasons often involves a balance between public health and individual rights. It's a complex issue with varying perspectives, and opinions may differ based on values and priorities.
Can you say more about the different perspectives? What do you think?
The question of whether it's right to restrict people's freedom for safety reasons is subjective. Some argue that temporary restrictions are necessary to protect public health, while others emphasize individual liberties and express concerns about government overreach. Striking a balance between safety and personal freedom often involves considering the severity of the situation and ensuring measures are proportionate and transparent. It's a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides.
Yes,
The president may declare a state of emergency only when the life of the nation is threatened and such is the situation in Ecuador.
In my opinion,setting a curfew in order to ensure that everyone is safe and sound is a necessary precaution that should not be up for discussion.
It may be perceived as a restriction of freedom, however, there is no selfish reasoning behind it and the only purpose is to protect us, the citizens.
Furthermore, the time of the curfew is extremely convenient as people should be able to achieve all they want to do for that day before 11pm.
In a nutshell, something like this is essential to ensure the protection of life of the people which is an obligation of the government to its people.
Even though I agree that it is wrong to restrict people's movement because some people may require medication or hospitalisation, I also think that this is unacceptable. In such cases, limiting movement may result in the loss of life and family members. Nevertheless, on the other side, I believe that it is also beneficial to impose restrictions only for security reasons in situations such as violent riots or dangers to human life. In these situations, life is preserved when movement is restricted.
I very well believe it is right to restrict the freedom of the people. Curfews serve as a deterrent to criminal activity and help maintain public order during times of heightened tension or uncertainty. By restricting nighttime activities and gatherings, curfews reduce the risk of civil unrest, looting, and other forms of criminal behavior, thereby enhancing community safety and security. in conclusion to my response, while restricting freedom during a state of emergency may be necessary to address immediate threats to public health and safety, it is essential for governments to ensure that such measures are proportionate, transparent, and subject to regular review. Respecting human rights, upholding the rule of law, and promoting transparency and accountability in decision-making are crucial principles that should guide the implementation of emergency measures, including curfews, to safeguard the well-being and dignity of all individuals affected by the crisis.
Hey,
I disagree because extended periods state of emergencies make it more probable for the government to misuse its power, letting authorities quiet critics, crush political opposition, or target certain groups. This undermines the system of checks and balances in a democracy. Reduced accountability during emergencies weakens oversight by the courts and lawmakers, giving the executive branch room for arbitrary decisions that may violate citizens' rights without proper scrutiny.
While acknowledging that states of emergency can be essential in certain situations, it is important to strike a balance between protecting public safety and preserving the fundamental principles of democracy and individual rights. Governments should be transparent, accountable, and ensure that emergency measures are proportional, necessary, and time-limited during a declared state of emergency.
Thank you.
For example, The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a serious threat to the public health and safety of Ecuador. To prevent the spread of the virus, the government has imposed a curfew that limits people’s movement during certain hours. This is a measure that aims to protect the public from the risk of infection and to reduce the pressure on the health system. However, some people may feel that this measure violates their freedom and rights. Is it justified to restrict people’s freedom for their own safety?
I think that it is justified, but only under certain conditions. First, the measure should be proportionate to the level of threat and the expected benefits. Second, the measure should be necessary and there should be no less restrictive alternatives available. Third, the measure should be non-discriminatory and respect the human dignity of all people. The curfew in Ecuador meets these conditions, as it is a temporary and targeted measure that responds to a public health emergency. Therefore, I think that it is right to restrict people’s freedom if it is to keep them safe.
Hi everyone,
In my own view, i think it is wrong to restrict peoples freedom, because when people loose their freedom, they won't be able to get medicines/drugs for health matters, foodstuff to eat and even most importantly restricted to have access/contact with their loved ones. Such restrictions can be very dangerous and can lead to death when there is no access to health facilities and love ones emotional comfort.
Even if the government is in-charge of the peoples safety, there is still a high need for freedom to be giving to the people. else the government will be operating a dictatorship kind of leadership, which i believe isn't the purpose of the government to its citizens.
With some level of freedom, the people will also appreciate the purpose of their safety and will not feel like being in prison/incarceration.
An example why freedom is more important is that when there is a fire outbreak in their houses, they will be able to escape without any casualty
Well in my opinion, it depends on the reason you are restricting the citizens. Usually the government restrict citizens for good reasons, Here is an example when the rights of citizens where restricted for a good reason: During COVID our right was denied to avoid the spread of the infectious disease. Some people may have violated their rights so the are denied of their right while others may pose a threat to society or cause harm to other citizens and may therefore need to have their rights limited in some way in order to protect those vulnerable citizens in the state.
The government care about the safety of their citizens that is why they often restrict their citizens.
I agree with you it really does depend, because the reason could be to help keep citizens safe or to generally restrict them. I liked the point you made about the COVID-19 pandemic, if was a terrible time but i think the government made a right decision when it came to restricting citizens because it was done to minimize the sickness and made sure that less amount of people were getting sick. which overall helped lower covid-19 cases so i do believe that for the most part restricting people's freedom to ensure their safety is ok.
Yes, it can be acceptable to restrict people's freedom in certain circumstances if it is necessary to ensure their safety. However, the decision to restrict freedom should always be carefully evaluated, taking into consideration the seriousness of the potential harm and the proportionality of the measures taken. It is important to strike a balance between safeguarding individuals and upholding their basic rights and liberties.
Yes i agree with you, in certain instances it might have to be done for the better of the people to make sure that they are safe and not in danger. Though you also make a good point about the restriction of freedom being something that should be evaluated, because (correct me if im wrong) your saying that it might be taken to a far extent which could lead to potential harm and lead to more issues which i do believe could happen. and so there should be a middle between these two choices where they are able to agree on something where people still have their basic rights, but are still safe and out of harm's way in this worrisome time.
Yes, you may ask why? Well, If being free is only a minor threat to your life, then it is only right that it is restricted. Safety is being protected from harm. Safety tries to help us live our life without fear of danger. Though people may uphold freedom as an ultimate virtue, it's limited in a society. You can't have absolute freedom because it takes away from the safety and the freedom of others. Sometimes drastic measures will have to be taken in order to protect lives, one of which is restricting freedom of movement. Yes, I can agree that freedom is a right, but if a right becomes a threat to life then it must be restricted. In a case scenario where someone can die because he or she is free I think we all agree that the person would rather lose their freedom for just a little time. Safety is always more important than freedom. Controversy between freedom or safety is that freedom can have many consequences to our actions, but safety can protect our lives. Freedom itself is a blessing, yet without a sense of security or protection there will be chaos. I understand that freedom is very important to humans because freedom give us the opportunity to do whatever we choose, but when it comes down to safety or freedom, safety is most important. Many people choose freedom over safety everyday and end up placing themselves in a position to end up in a dangerous situation. So I believe it is okay to restrict people's freedom in order to keep them safe.
I think it is right to restrict people's freedom. I agree with it because to fear, safety is more important than anything else. Those who allow fear to take over fight for safety. Those who don't feel fear fight for freedom.
I agree because when a state of emergency is declared for a situation such as war, it keeps the citizens safe from all attacks. In a case where a state of emergency is called because of disease, it prevents the spread. For example, the casualties COVID-19 caused were reduced because of the state of emergency that was declared worldwide.
Yes, I agree. I think we should also learn to accept our government as it is. The reason I said yes was because I believe that the safety of others should come first. Maintaining the law is our civic obligation for national security. All other things considered, I believe that we, as its citizens, ought to be accountable and act responsibly to give our government more time to develop into more capable leaders. Accepting their hand and being more tolerant of them is what we need to learn to do instead of fighting.
Yes it is right to restrict people's freedom if it's to keep them safe because of the person the have become. Prisoner's are safe from danger than other citizens have right now. For instance there's a war or a bomb is to drop at part of the country, prisoner's are more safer than citizens because it will get to citizens that are not in prison now before it will get to those that are in prison.it justify about the state's action and about their rights and polity, they can keep check on limitations of our rights. This justifies the state's restriction and provide safeguards to citizen for which we need rationality and vigilance.
Thanks
Yes it is right to restrict people freedom to keep them safe. In times of emergency safety is the first and utmost priority of any individual. Which leads me to the definition of safety this is defined as the condition of being protected from anything unlikely to cause risks, danger and injury. Safety is not something you have you have an option to as it is for your own betterment but freedom you have a choice over it . So if given the choice of been safe over having freedom I will gladly choose safety as you have to be safe in other to have freedom.
The question of restricting people's freedom for safety reasons involves a complex balance between public health and individual liberties. It often depends on the specific circumstances and the effectiveness of the measures in place.
Certainly, the imposition of a 60-day state of emergency in Ecuador, accompanied by a curfew from 11pm to 5am, raises questions about the delicate balance between public safety and individual freedoms. Evaluating the appropriateness of such restrictions necessitates a nuanced consideration of the specific threat, the effectiveness of the measures, and the impact on citizens' fundamental rights. The justification for these actions typically revolves around mitigating a perceived risk to public health or security.
Ecuador, like most countries, faces the challenge of finding a balance between freedom and safety. It is a delicate balance that requires compromise and careful consideration.
On the one hand, freedom is a normal human right, and people should be free to express themselves, practice their religion, and live their lives without dis agreement from the government or other authorities. Citizens should not have to sacrifice their personal liberties to maintain safety.
On the other hand, safety is also important for a stable society. The government has a responsibility to ensure that its citizens are protected from violence, crime, and other threats. This often involves regulating certain activities and restricting certain freedoms to ensure the safety and well-being of the population as a whole.
In Ecuador, the government has taken steps to ensure the safety of its citizens while still respecting their freedoms. For example, the country has made significant progress in reducing crime through increased law enforcement efforts, and the government has implemented regulations to prevent drug trafficking and other illegal activities.
At the same time, the Ecuadorian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, and religious freedom. The country also has a vibrant civil society that advocates for human rights and individual liberties.
In summary, Ecuador strives to balance freedom and safety through a combination of regulations and respect for individual liberties.
Hi, i believe that to some extent it is right to restrict peoples freedom to ensure their safety. When i heard that Ecuador issued a state of emergency my first thought was the citizens that live there, and how worried they must be knowing that this terrible person is out. which is why in this case i think that it is right for there to be a curfew because if it makes sure people are safe then it's a step that should definitely be taken. by there being a curfew they limit the chances of someone being hurt or involved and by making a curfew it can also help locate the criminal faster because if they see that a person is out during curfew hours they could investigate and see if its the person they are looking for.
In my opinion, it would be why they are restricting the citizens. I would not want them restricting for a bad reason. As an example, during COVID-19 we were all restricted to go to school or parties. If you look at it another way, you are restricted to leave the house from 11pm to 5am because you could potentially get killed, robbed or kidnapped. This in a way shows that the governors care about their people . They have a good reason for this so I think that they are keeping people safe. I think that it was right to pick there choice.
I agree with creative_elephant by saying yes to restricting people’s freedom for safety measure because in a medical situation for example, when people need to be quarantine is not just all about people staying at their home it is also to try and fix the problem until it subsides. On the other hand, while we are safe I think restricting freedom isn’t always the answer as it can sometimes be a problem in many ways for example during COVID 19 after the lockdown we noticed in a particular area where people forcefully got into a warehouse and looted the food items in there. Restriction of movement can cause hunger in the land resulting in some cases riots and death.
Yes, restricting people's freedom is right, when it is keeping them safe. Some people might not understand the dangerous effects of the issue. They are rather misinformed or they do not believe that what is happening is true or it can affect them in any way. That's when I think that the authorities should step in. Such uninformed people should not be allowed to influence the fate of other people also. It is one thing to not care enough about protecting yourself, and another thing to endanger others lives as well. I also do not think it is right to walk on the street while such people are in freedom and expect the police officers to save you. They are there indeed to protect you, but not if you are putting yourself in danger on purpose, risking their lives too. I believe that restricting people's freedom is alright when there's a real issue and it protects both the people and the authorities who are doing their best to find a solution. Something to consider is also the fact that some people from this gang might approach teenagers and try to force them into doing some illegal actions, that they don't actually want to do. I believe that doing such a thing is shameful, as I think that using someone in order to achieve something only for yourself is never right. Innocent people are so often affected by stuff that other bad intended people choose to do. In my opinion, that needs to stop. Doing something bad for yourself is something, but forcing someone else into doing it too is awful.
To begin with,
Emergency is only implied when there's a serious issue which needs to be handled effectively and efficiently .
I honestly believe that ,safety should always come first regardless of the method taken to achieve it.
I have always had this philosophy that, it's better to be safe than sorry.
There is an issue in Ecuador,and in other to protect it's citizens they installed
curfews.
All I see is a government striving to protect it's citizens from harm.,
I sincerely believe it is right to be safe than sorry even if some privileges are restricted.
I also believe that citizens should be educated about the issues of their country in order for them to be more obedient.
Citizens should be aware about the actions the government take in other to preserve lives.
Government should create platforms,programs to sensitize citizens better.
To conclude I believe that Enlightenment would be a great way to keep everyone more safe and secure
I think it is right to restrict people's freedom if it is to keep them safe. If anybody has any arguments, the can be enlightened that it is for their safety. Following the prison escape in Ecuador, it may be justified to temporarily impose restrictions on certain freedoms in order to bolster public safety and prevent further harm. Immediate actions, including heightened security checks, curfews, and increased surveillance, can assist authorities in swiftly locating and apprehending escaped prisoners. These measures are implemented to safeguard citizens by reducing the likelihood of criminal activities, ensuring a rapid response to the escape, and reinstating a sense of security in the community. While such restrictions may be temporary and limit individual freedoms, they are crucial for upholding public order, averting potential threats, and expeditiously resolving the ongoing crisis. The objective is to find a balance between protecting individual liberties and addressing the immediate risks posed by the prison escape.
In response to straightforward_beaver's viewpoint, I also believe that limitations on people's freedom are appropriate, but curfews during emergencies are beneficial for the security and welfare of the populace. People may be killed or seriously injured if there is violence in one area of a nation and they are free to move about; this will instill fear throughout the nation. Families and the nation as a whole will suffer greatly from the loss of property due to violent acts in terms of resources and the economy.
The question of whether it is right to restrict people's freedom, even temporarily, for the sake of their safety is subjective and often depends on the context and justification behind such measures. In the case of a state of emergency, such restrictions are typically implemented to address and mitigate a specific threat or crisis, such as a public health emergency, natural disaster, or security threat. But the fact is that if we are not safe where does freedom come from. for able to experience freedom you need to live and stay alive . So looking at the situation in Ecuador right now. I think ya it can be okay to restrict people's freedom temporarily if it's to keep them safe during an emergency. This could include things like curfews or limits on movement. However, it's important that these restrictions are reasonable, necessary, and are only in place for as long as needed. Balancing safety with personal freedoms is key, and the government should communicate clearly about why these measures are in place. It's also important for there to be oversight to make sure these restrictions are fair and don't last longer than necessary.
What do you think would make a restriction reasonable?
Yes, it is right to restrict their freedom and ensure their safety. Also, safety can be protected with consequences. Freedom itself can be a blessing, but without a sense of security or protection, there will be chaos because some people cannot handle so much power in their hands. Why is safety more important?
Being safe leads to:
Longer, healthier life.
Decreased risk of injury and sickness.
Making others safer.
Also, too much freedom can lead to unwanted risks which the government is trying their very best to avoid.
Yes I believe it's right but I will not go with the word restrict. Persuading people to stay indoor so they can be safe is good and right but I believe restricting them of their freedom is not actually nice even if it means their safety.
Rightly said lucky_skill.
I agree with encouraging people to stay indoors for their safety, but I am hesitant to use the term "restrict" as it implies curtailing their freedom. It's crucial to prioritize safety while still respecting individual freedoms as much as possible. However, in certain emergency situations, temporary restrictions on certain rights may be necessary to ensure the safety and well-being of the community as a whole.
I understand that you may have concerns about the restrictions being imposed on people. However, it is important to ensure everyone's safety, and sometimes restrictions are necessary to achieve that. By taking these measures, we can prevent unforeseeable circumstances that could arise if people are allowed to roam freely. Moreover, by imposing these restrictions, we can ensure that prisoners do not mix in the crowd and cause harm.
Yes, I agree with contemplative_fly that it is reasonable to restrict people's movement when it comes to their well-being. Movement restrictions, for example, are in place during the Ecuadorian jail outbreak because a Fito on the street could wreak havoc and possibly attack innocent people.
In order to keep us safe and reduce damage to public property and equipment, the government places restrictions on its citizens.
Yes, to ensure safety, restrictions are occasionally required. While I agree that freedom is good, I believe that safety should come first. It will be excellent to listen when limitations are put in place, much like in Ecuador, if you desire a great life for everyone. In situations like this, following the directives of the government not only helps a nation handle significant issues, but also presents the nation favourably to other nations as they observe that fewer casualties have occurred and that public properties, infrastructure, and resources have been preserved. When limitations like these are removed, travellers won't be frightened to enter the nation.
In my opinion, It is right to restrict people's freedom for safety. Safety should be a first priority because if the people aren't safe then how can they enjoy freedom? At first the people should be then only they can enjoy their freedom. Restricting people is a good way to keep people safe. If people get freedom in such dangerous situation there is a very hing chance of loss of property and people's life.
Striking a balance between freedom and safety during a state of emergency involves varied perspectives.
Yes:
Public Safety: Prioritizing protection from harm by restricting movement during specific hours.
Facilitating Law Enforcement: Aiding identification and apprehension of criminals by streamlining law enforcement operations.
Temporary Measure: Implementing a temporary restriction to address an immediate threat, with the curfew likely to be lifted once the situation is under control.
No:
Civil Liberties: Expressing concerns about restricting freedom and potential violations of civil liberties.
Erosion of Trust: Highlighting the risk of eroding public trust through prolonged restrictions, emphasizing transparent communication.
Effectiveness: Questioning the effectiveness of curfews compared to alternative, less restrictive strategies.
To find a balance, the government should align rules with international human rights standards, respecting fundamental liberties. Ultimately, the separation between freedom and safety is deemed unnecessary, advocating for their harmonious coexistence.
Yes, it is right to restrict people’s freedom so that they will be safe from danger as now presently if not they will be prone to dangers so yes i agree to that people’s freedom can be restricted to keep keep them. Thanks.
You make a fair argument, witty_cheetah -- but what is the limit? How much freedom are you willing to give up because authorities tell you it will keep you safer? Can you imagine any situation where you would like to make your own decisions about what is safe for you, and not be told what to do?
Actually, for me the is no limit to that and, I will be able to give up anything for my safety so as I can be protected from different dangers and harms towards me so, I can say that people should not have any limit to their safety for the better good of their safety and their lives, like now Fito has escaped, the people in Ecuador need to have a limit to their freedom so as, to be secured from the dangers of prisoners who has escaped from the prison due to their means of escaping and also they should go more far to be keep their lives safe.
For example, of a situation where I can make my own decisions for my safety, is in the aspects of my social life and media which they can be more dangers towards me which can make me prone to the dangers whereby I have to make a limit to my freedom in my social life and media. Actually, for me I can only make my own decision about my own safety so as to be more protected from dangers. Thanks.
In my perspective, I believe individuals should be granted their freedom because there are numerous potential dangers that can occur during the night. For instance, a family member could get injured at home and be in need of assistance, but no one would be able to come to their aid if they are unable to leave the house. On the other hand, the night can also be a time for enjoyment and engaging in various activities such as partying and having fun with friends. What harm is there in that? However, it is important to consider the need for safety as well, as there are many risks associated with the night. These risks include incidents like robberies, shootings, accidents, and individuals getting intoxicated and injuring themselves. Ultimately, the night can neither be deemed completely safe nor unsafe, but I strongly believe that people should have the freedom to make their own choices.
Yes. Not just right, I believe it is essential to restrict their freedom to keep them safe. Humans when allowed to much freedom, are likely to destroy their own lives and the lives of those around them. Do we allow a patient on his sickbed to play football? We restrict it even when he has the right to do it...Excess of everything is bad. Excess of Freedom will make us lose every sense of right and wrong. All that will exist will be the need of satisfying our own pleasure.
*Greater freedom is synonymous to greater responsibilities. The freer we are, the most we have to keep ourselves in check. Now, no one will do that for us. We have to prioritise what is good for us and what satisfies us. And honestly, majority of the population cannot be expected to do that...*
Coming to a more specific topic. Let us talk about the Curfew in Ecuador. Assuming no curfew is placed:
1) Most people, habitual to late night outings and parties will not stop their actions.
Repercussion? The rioters might as well hold them hostage, or worse, kill them as proof of their strength and dominance.
2) People will have no sense of fear in their minds. They will not understand the gravity of the situation.
Repercussion - They will get reckless. Venture into Isolated Areas, Gang Areas and that too, freely. They won't be vigilant and thus exposed to the risk.
All in all, many lives will be lost. Because honestly, things that we've never seen happening will not worry us. We will always prioritise what we WANT over what is good for us.
So yes. It is right to restrict people's freedom to keep them safe. It is important, for their own well being.
I believe it is right to restrict people's freedom to maintain their safety. The curfew will lead to a decrease in chances of some of the many crimes happening. Imagine you're walking on the street after a long day of work and suddenly someone comes and attacks you. The curfew would prevent the crime from happening, which means there will be less cases of assault in Ecuador. I also believe it is right because the curfew is only there to protect people. It is very dangerous to be outside in the night, as you may not know what is lurking in the night. There could be dangerous people, armed people, and more, you may never know what could happen to you in the night.
In order to be free, safety is needed. Being safe should be a top priority because in order to be free, you need to be alive. I mean this in the utmost seriousness, safety should be priority #1. For example, while the entirety of the world was on lockdown for covid, no one could really do anything they wanted if it required going outside and interacting with others. The lockdown was making people anxious and everyone was all over the place. Violence was at its peak and hatred was everywhere. Not everyone enjoyed quarantine, but it kept us safe and helped us stay alive. My personal experience with quarantine helps me understand what they are going through, and yes, being inside the house all day every day isn't fun but it's to help and keep a good number of people safe and alive.
I believe the restriction of people's freedom is vital to keep them safe.
The state of emergency Ecuador is facing right know justifies that even more. With the rise in gang activities happening in Ecuador, nighttime is the most prominent time for them to act. So, putting up that curfew not only saves people and property from harm, but lives are safe as well. However, there is the challenge of finding a balance between protecting individual safety and respecting their freedom of movement. So, the government needs to be transparent and prevent the abuse of power of the enforcers. Since, it is for their own good, it is a great choice, cause at the end of the day ' Safety is always over Freedom'.
Yes, I believe it right to restrict people’s freedom if it is to keep them safe. The reason I agree with that is because even if we don't see it prisons are helping us. Prisons are keeping us face all the time from keeping bad and or dangerous people away from us. In this case as always prisons are keeping us safe even if its taking away our freedom. What would you choose freedom but in danger or less freedom for some time to stay safe? Personally I would choose less freedom for some time to stay safe. I say this because less freedom for some time to stay safe will ensure we live a little longer at least than freedom but in danger. Because if we are in danger it can effect how we live and how long we live for.
Hello, yes if it is for their safety I think it's the right thing to do because if there is someone out that commit crimes that escape while serving his sentence it's a dangerous situation, but I also think this is the right thing to do because it maintains order all over the state and how the government is trying to get citizens out of getting harm.
Yes,of course it's right to restrict freedom for the sake of safety,as the say "Better Safe Than Sorry". Besides, any society's main mission is the flourishing of its people and assurance of their well-being. In addition, if it wasn't for the society's concern,many lives would be at risk then, no peace shall exist in a country where the criminals are the ones with control.
HELLO!
In my opinion, safety is better than freedom because, if people are free there but not safe there will be danger so, that's why I say safety is better than freedom
THANK YOU!
Hello,
I understand where you are coming from saying safety is better than freedom, but if you think about it, people tend to make better choices when they have ownership of those choices and the consequences. I belive that people should be allowed to make their own choices, but should also accept the consequences of those choices whether they are good consequences or bad. I understand that there could be a risk in doing this however people might make bad choices, which might damage them, and might also damage others, but you believe that this is a risk worth taking, because it is more important to be free than to be safe.
Kind regards,
idealistic_drawing
I agree because restricting certain rights in some situations is as a result of the effort of the government to protect other rights. During public emergencies or crises like pandemics or natural disasters, governments might enforce limitations on freedom of movement to safeguard public health and safety. Such measures may encompass quarantine protocols, travel restrictions, or curfews designed to curb the transmission of diseases and uphold order amidst emergencies.
Your perspective highlights the importance of safety in maintaining a stable and secure community. It's a thoughtful consideration that acknowledges the necessity of security for overall well-being. Striking a balance between freedom and safety is crucial for a harmonious society. If you have further thoughts or questions, feel free to share!
In my overall opinion, I think it is right to restrict people's freedom for safety precautions. Well at first, people in Ecuador may never know when danger is going to occur to them. Secondly, if a person is caught in a vulnerable position danger will occur to them or even worse death. Usually at night, more crimes are committed since people are most likely sleeping through 11pm-5am. If a person is taking a stroll around the neighborhood through those times, it is possible that they might get kidnapped, murdered, or robbed at those hours. Since Ecuador is in a state of emergency, it is right to restrict people's freedoms during that emergency to keep the citizens safe.
I believe it is not right to restrict freedom in order for safety. It could lead to many situations where citizens are barely able to have basic rights in order for "safety". Think about this, what if a dictator gets elected into power, specifically in a country that has a presidential democracy. So, putting that into perspective, restricting freedom for safety is NOT a good way for someone to run a country.
I agree with triumphant snow we are supposed to limit our freedom for safety if we had little freedom and much safety it will make the world we leave in a better place. Governments,police warders and the army should also take up the responsibility of protecting our society.
This is actually a tough decision to make because both factors help us in a positive way. But most preferably freedom from crime is better, when we are free from crime, there will be no need to be saved from it in the fact that it's no more and the place will be a better place for each and every one of us.
But don't get me wrong safety is also important to the country.
No because if you ask me people should have freedom and if the person should do anything he/she will feel as if they have done something wrong.
Yeah, it is right restrict peoples freedom but there are also some downsides. They keep the citizens safe from the chaos happening in the country. If someone goes out they may be faced in front of bad people or sometimes even get involved in fights between police and criminals. which would also help the police to bring the end in the chaos. But there are some scenarios, like if a person needs to go to hospital for emergency. For this curfew they wouldn't be able to go to hospitals. Even if they can it would make delay also sometimes too late. Also some persons would be offended if their freedom is harmed. But hey also need to think about safety without just thinking about freedom. That is why restriction is both good and bad.
I agree but at the same time the government can limit some protected speech by imposing “time, place and manner” restrictions. This is most commonly done by requiring permits for meetings, rallies and demonstrations.
This is a great idea but the only exception should be for emergencies.
Crime usually happens when it is dark. According to research, Crime rates increase by 6% at night time. Criminals like to lurk through the night sky. When it is dark, it makes it very difficult to see what is happening around you. Criminals use this as an advantage to commit crimes without being caught. This is how many crimes go unsolved, but with a public curfew this can make a change. Law enforcement needs to be heavy on curfew times. There needs to be police forces lurking around the streets to make sure no one is staying out after downtime.
Then there comes emergencies. These are things that have to be taken care of quickly because if not then things can go south. The thing is that police forces will most likely be strict if someone goes out to seek help for emergencies. Which can lead to things going south such as death. This can increase death rates but, can be helped if they bring exceptions to emergencies then this is a great idea.
This idea can go far but has to be bypasses to it.
Personally, I believe that it is right to restrict people's freedom if it's to keep them safe. Let's take COVID 19 for example, we all stayed at home, some for a shorter period of time than others, to ensure our safety as well as to prevent any unneeded spread of the virus. Now, returning to this topic, people are being told to stay at home for their safety. Is there much difference between these two scenarios? I don't think so.
For me, it is easier to understand as to why the Government took control in this situation as they have a responsibility to do what is best for the people. If the Government hadn't enforced these new rules for these 60 days and had instead used it as a recommendation, the people would have to take responsibility for themselves, which is much riskier. I would suggest that this would cause more risk as there would be some people who wouldn't be bothered by the escaped criminal so they could act in careless ways, which could endanger them. Although the majority of Ecuador probably would listen to the Government, if this were a recommendation, it is still much easier to just enforce new rules to make sure that what is best for the people is being done.
I agree with your statement because you compared something that already happened (Covid-19) to the ongoing struggles of Ecuador. You uplifted the Ecuadorian government by stating how he kept his country safe.
I think it is right to restrict people’s freedom in situations like this when the security of a nation is threatened- as the saying goes "No Safety Know Pain, Know Safety, No Pain." Society goes through unforeseen trauma and pain each time its safety is under threat, ranging from negative Impact on governance, education, public health and economic growth. Safety handles security issues effectively and efficiently. Safety gives everyone a sense of personal protection and self-confidence. An unsafe environment promotes fear, retrogression, and backwardness, it creates economic instability as a result of the ‘fear of the unknown’. In the event of a security breach, activities are put on hold, social activities are suspended, this makes life very difficult and unbearable. Living in an unsafe environment is better imagined than experienced.
I am for the motion of restricting people's freedoms to keep them safe because, safety is what keeps us well... Alive!
Freedom means less safety because, if you say,"Freedom for the prisoners!"
all prisoners will be let free causing other restrictions of freedoms like curfews, fear of going outside due to bombing, many wars and riots amongst people among the country (which takes away people's right of peace); much more
Death rates will also increase due to suicide, genocide and wars/riots.
In my opinion I think that if it's for their safely then I agree with having a curfew. This is a state of emergency and something that should be taken serious. It is not something that is lasting forever it's only 60 days if people don't want to comply then I find it ridiculous because if most people could stay home during a worldwide lockdown due to a virus I think they can stay home for their safety from danger.
I personally agree because if its for their safety then yes they should be a curfew,yes freedom is something very important but i honestly think their own safety is much more important than having freedom.Your country or city giving you a curfew to keep you safe is honestly a privilege there are many countries who don't care about your safety and will let you do whatever you want,it may sound better but if its for your own safety its honestly ridiculous for you to want to be out and put yourself in danger.
I quite agree with poetic_tsunami. It is good to restrict people's freedom if it's to keep them safe, if people's freedom is not restricted, then that might cause loss of lives and property. In addition, it might make humans think that the government is not a responsible entity. In my opinion, the secret to a good government is the government taking responsibility and always going for the right side no matter the condition. Finally, I think the government is right to restrict people's freedom if it keeps them safe.
I think in this case it is right to restrict people's freedom if it keeps them safe. If crime is running this rampant and the country is in a state of emergency I think the government should do what it deems necessary to keep its citizens safe. The only problem with the government deeming safety over freedom is that some governments or people in positions of power will then try to use that to restrict basic freedoms/rights under the guise of keeping you safe and that's where it becomes a problem. In the overall argument of freedom vs safety I think if it is well intentioned it is important and some freedoms should be restricted if it keeps people safe.
I agree that it is right to restrict people's freedom if it's to keep them safe because if we take this into perspective in our own lives, some of our parents put curfews on us to be back by a certain time to keep us safe, especially at night time. another thing is that in Ecuador, the curfew put on the citizens is also a good time because the streets in Ecuador at night are not safe.
Safety is important but if we don't have freedom I don't think it's worth it because when you go to the zoo we see the animals locked inside the glass or cage and they are safe but they are not free and if we choose safety over freedom we will feel like that.
I disagree because... if the safety is for our own good, then we should go with it. Imagine the animals being free but not safe. Poachers will attack and kill them. I think that we should go with the safe path for mean time before peace in finally restored and we can enjoy the peace together.
Whether it is right to restrict people's freedom in order to keep them safe is a complex ethical question that depends on various factors, including the severity of the situation, the effectiveness of the measures, and the proportionality of the restrictions to the threat posed. In the case of a state of emergency declared in response to a crisis such as a public health emergency or natural disaster, temporary restrictions on certain freedoms may be deemed necessary to protect public safety and well-being.
In the scenario described, implementing a curfew to prevent the spread of COVID-19 or address other public health concerns could be justified as a measure to reduce the transmission of the virus and protect vulnerable populations. Curfews can help limit social gatherings, reduce unnecessary travel, and encourage compliance with public health guidelines, ultimately saving lives and preventing the healthcare system from being overwhelmed.
However, it is essential to ensure that such restrictions are proportionate, necessary, and based on scientific evidence. Governments must also balance public safety with respect for individual rights and liberties, ensuring that any limitations on freedom are temporary, transparent, and subject to regular review. Additionally, measures should be accompanied by support for affected individuals and communities, including access to essential services, financial assistance, and mental health support.
Ultimately, whether it is right to restrict people's freedom in a particular situation depends on the context, the justification for the restrictions, and the mechanisms in place to safeguard human rights and democratic principles. It is crucial for governments to uphold the rule of law, respect constitutional rights, and engage in transparent communication with the public when implementing emergency measures.
I disagree with this comment as having freedom is a human right and people might not be able to get home from work in time , might have a emergency causing them to have to leave the house or might need to do something in that time range. being held hostage is not good for our community because we all have human rights and needs to do what we like.
I believe its right to give people curfews to keep them safe. I think its right because if people are out at night, they can get hurt or commit crimes easily. With this curfew it might not stop all the crimes or emergencies but it will help. At night, most of the time it is dark outside. With no light, you won't be able to see outside potentially causing something to happen to you. Especially if there is bad people out there and the city is with no emergencies or good run prisons.
Yes I believe that they should restrict things and put in place rules and curfews in order so for citizens to be safe they may be holding back citizens' freedom but would you rather be free and a target because your not safe or be safe and be in no unauthorised danger . I think and believe that being safe you and your family and living is one of the most important things and by being a safe influence on people your protecting more people . Rules like these in a state of emergency need to be mauntained
The question of whether it is right to restrict people's freedom for the purpose of keeping them safe is subjective and often depends on the specific circumstances. In emergencies, such as a pandemic or a threat to public safety, governments may implement temporary measures, such as curfews, to protect the population. The key is to strike a balance between individual freedoms and public safety. It is essential to assess the necessity, proportionality, and duration of such restrictions, ensuring that they are based on scientific evidence and are implemented with transparency and accountability. Public health and safety considerations may sometimes justify temporary restrictions on freedom, but it is crucial to safeguard individual rights and regularly review and reassess these measures to prevent abuses of power.
Public Health and Safety:
The primary justification for such restrictions often revolves around public health and safety. For instance, a curfew may help prevent large gatherings and ensure social distancing, reducing the risk of transmission of a contagious disease.
Governments may argue that by imposing temporary restrictions, they are protecting the overall well-being of the population and preventing the healthcare system from being overwhelmed.
It is right to restrict people's freedom if it is to keep them safe because if they should get captured at night they will be greatly affected and captured by dangerous people . they will be forced to pay huge amount of money or they might be killed. the government is doing a great job by keeping them safe . anyone can be captured at any time . I suggest that the government should be able to provide security every where so that people can be able to move freely from one place to another without being afraid or being locked up in their house.
I believe that having a curfew is good for safety but restricting peoples freedom isn't. I feel like making it mandatory isn't the best I think that it should be suggested and if they don't listen then that is their problem because even if it were a law to not go out at certain times some people will still try and sneak out and go out it wouldn't be a difference because if someone wants to go out they will so I think their rights should not be restricted but just give suggestions.
In my opinion, I agree to restrict people's freedom if it's to keep them safe. This is because I care for people and I don't want them to get hurt. It's important that they stay safe and don't get hurt. By this you'll be safe from any threats. Keeping everybody safe is our responsibility because watching someone get hurt is not okay.
Restricting people's freedom to keep them safe is a contentious issue that requires careful consideration. On the one hand, it can be argued that certain restrictions are necessary to protect public safety, especially in situations where there is a clear and present danger. For example, during a natural disaster, curfews and restrictions on movement may be necessary to prevent people from entering danger zones and risking their lives. In such cases, restricting individual freedoms may be seen as a necessary evil to ensure public safety.
On the other hand, restrictions on freedom can be seen as an infringement on individual rights and can lead to resentment and unrest. Governments need to balance the need to protect public safety with the need to respect individual rights and freedoms. Additionally, any restrictions on freedom should be proportionate to the threat and should be clearly communicated to the public. Ultimately, the decision to restrict freedom to protect public safety is a delicate balance that requires careful consideration of the potential risks and benefits, as well as the principles of justice and fairness.
In my opinion, it's safety because in a country we have set rules and regulations that as been put in place so as citizens we should always follow the rules and regulations. Some people don't have freedom and they cannot prove that if they get freedom they will not misuse it. Safety is when we are protected to avoid danger or any critical situations. So I feel like prisoners should not be given freedom after they are released because they feel like they have been punished and they don't care about going to prison again because they are used to the place. In my hometown, people want to go to prison because they have trouble not because they committed a crime or not because they are lawbreakers. So in every country, there should be a way to protect anybody going through any threat, assault, violence, or abuse, there should be safety in every country everyone should feel comfortable wherever they are they should not feel threatened. And because you are protecting someone does not mean that you should deny them their basic freedom. So in this case safety is preferred over freedom
Hi @lovable_spring, interesting ideas. Do you think prisoners can be reformed and change for the better?
Hello , Chloe @ Topical Talk .
In my point of view , I will say yes ; because , when prisoners are kept in prison , if they are punished / handled appropriately ( with love ) , they are likely to change because they will still have a sense of belonging and will not feel neglected amongst others and will come to a realization that if they are still accepted by people in their current state / situation , they will definitely be of a more favorable state when they possess better character .
It's often said that "freedom is the oxygen of the soul," but one must remember that oxygen loses its meaning if the soul is lost forever. For me, true freedom is only when the person is entirely safe. What is the point of roaming free if a cloud of danger continuously lingers over you? Wouldn’t you prefer to stay in, where you can rest assured? I know I would.
During emergencies, such as that of Ecuador, curfews are important to ensure safety for all. An 11 pm to 5 am curfew isn’t that bad considering all the potential risks that could occur if not implemented. Since a government is considered people’s representative, it must prioritize 'what’s important, good, and safe for the people' over 'what will people like?'. And that is why it is right to restrict people's freedom to keep them safe.
Hiii, Hello, Namasthe and Vanakkam to everyone..........
I think that it is right to restrict people's freedom for their safety. I can now tell an example, 4 to 5 years ago we all experienced the contagious virus named COVID-19 . At that time not only one or two countries announced lockdown. Nearly overall world countries announced lockdown and restricted the people's freedom to even come out of the house for more than 1 to 2 years. This helped to save the life of millons and millons of people but only restricted people's freedom to come out of there house. By comparing the corona virus situation, this situation is very easy for the people not to come out during night time just for 6 hours. The government of Ecuador has restricted the people's freedom for the same people's safety, so the action made by the government of Ecuador is correct and everyone should accept it and should co-operate the government.
Thank you.
Yes, I think having a curfew is a good idea because it helps the police control where people go to keep everyone safe and decreases the chances of kidnappings. I also suggest changing the curfew time from 11pm to 5am to 10pm to 9am, as it would be safer with fewer people out after 10pm, while more people are awake and out after 9am, reducing the risk of kidnappings.
Interesting idea @ambitious_panther. Why might a person need or want to leave the house before 9am?
I believe people leave their homes before 9 am for reasons like school starting early, possibly as early as 8 am in places like Nigeria. Additionally, many people need to go to work during those hours.
Generally, I believe that people should empathize the combination of both freedom and safety. However, in dangerous situations like this, it is obvious that safety has to be the number one priority for local citizens and if the situation is that menacing, then of course it is right to restrict their freedom. To illustrate my perspective, although freedom can give to individuals a sense of happiness, aliveness and liberation of acting willingly, it can't bring back the life of a human being in the event of an unwanted accident. It is sure that the specific person will feel free at the time but thjs can cost him in a way he can't redeem. On the other hand, safety can protect people from being in a difficult position and it can also generate in their hearts positive feeling and a sunbeam of optimism for their future, although it can sometimes affect thejr mental and spiritual health. So, it needless to say, that restricting freedom is the best and most appropriate way to move forward in order for social cohension to be achieved. Besides, feeling safe is today's society is pivotal even if it means loosing your opportunity in freedom.
The question of whether it's right to restrict people's freedom for safety reasons is complex. In emergencies, such as the state of emergency in Ecuador, restrictions are often implemented to protect public health and safety. While limiting freedom temporarily may be justifiable for immediate safety, it's crucial to ensure that such measures are proportionate, transparent, and subject to review.
Balancing individual freedoms with the collective well-being is a delicate task. Governments must communicate effectively, justify the necessity of restrictions, and strive to minimize the impact on personal liberties. Striking the right balance between public safety and individual freedom is essential for maintaining trust and fostering a resilient society.
In times of crisis, governments may impose restrictions on individual freedoms to mitigate threats and safeguard public well-being. The state of emergency in Ecuador, with a curfew from 11 pm to 5 am, is a measure aimed at controlling the spread of COVID-19 or addressing other pressing concerns.
The justification for such restrictions lies in the principle of protecting the greater good. By limiting certain freedoms temporarily, authorities aim to curb the transmission of the virus, prevent overwhelming healthcare systems, and ultimately save lives. This strategy is rooted in the concept of societal responsibility, recognizing that individual actions can have profound consequences for the community.
However, the challenge lies in ensuring that these measures are proportionate, necessary, and time-limited. Governments must communicate transparently, providing clear reasons for the restrictions and regularly assessing their effectiveness. It is essential to strike a delicate balance between public safety and personal liberties, avoiding overreach that may erode trust and compliance.
Moreover, the temporary nature of these measures is crucial. Continuous oversight, periodic reassessment, and a commitment to lifting restrictions when the situation allows are fundamental aspects of responsible governance. Striking the right balance not only preserves the core values of a democratic society but also maintains trust between citizens and authorities.
In essence, while temporary restrictions on freedom may be justifiable for the collective good during emergencies, ensuring accountability, transparency, and proportionality is paramount to uphold the democratic principles that underpin society.
Balancing personal freedom and public safety is a delicate dance. While restrictions like curfews might seem intrusive, they're often implemented with the invention of safeguarding the collective well-being. In times of emergency, the challenge lies in finding a middle ground that preserves individual liberties without compromising public health. The key is transparency and accountability in governance to ensure these measures are temporary and justified.
I believe it is right to restrict people's freedom if it's to keep them safe because in the end people's lives wouldn't be at risk, with this curfew it is intended to reduce crime which is a crucial problem in today's society, which is happening internationally and in one's own life, whether it's seen by the public or not it's always happening. People tend to do criminal acts during the dark; in most cases during midnight. While freedom is refreshing to feel, one can experience much greatness in it, while there are many criminal activities that can be impossible for citizens to keep to themselves. Freedom can be both negative in various cases. As previously mentioned crimes occur commonly at midnight, for people feel freedom because it can get less populated some have negative intentions when being free, causing a dangerous environment for those whom do not think negativity.
Curfews for all, especially for a whole country aren't common or seen played out much. Since, this isn't done a lot we don't know exactly how it can play out. It can be expected that citizens would result in anger or disagreements, but that doesn't mean everyone is. It's fair and understandable for anyone to be against it, for this isn't universal in our society today. In today's world, the population isn't very safe without restrictions; curfews. Therefore it can be expected to impact the country of Ecuador well, even if it means n0 freedom. Safety is supposed to be prioritized for everyone. Freedom should be prioritized as well, though not in the sense where people endure the feeling of not being safe.
Imposing curfews is a matter, with its own set of pros and cons. Thus, I don't believe that one can answer this question with a simple "yes" or "no." Of course, when the government is faced with extreme situations threatening the safety of its people, their first priority should be protection. In such circumstances, radical measures may be necessary, even if they're unpopular among citizens, moving forward with a "better safe than sorry" mindset. Controlling the masses not only improves the chances of finding an escaped prisoner but also ensures that no lives are lost in the process.
However, there's another side to this coin. Curfews instill fear among the masses. In situations where someone is on their way to the hospital due to a medical emergency and the police surround them, initiating inquiries, citizens may feel anything but safe. If a criminal wants to commit a crime, they will do so even in broad daylight. Sacrificing citizens' freedom to prevent the possibility of criminals acting in the dark does not seem fair. This perspective has also been presented in an article by the Time Magazine, which covers the aspect of curfews. They mention the curfew laws of Philadelphia, stating that in July 2022, when the updated curfew was in effect, most violent crimes did not decrease compared to the same month a year earlier. In fact, certain crimes increased drastically: robberies with a gun went up by 72%, other types of robberies increased by 40%, and auto thefts went up by 29%. Let's consider the Covid period as an instance when the world was under lockdown. Though cases reduced after the lockdown and curfew were announced in several parts of the world, people were apprehensive, and some even suffered from mental health problems. This show how restricting people's freedom is not an effective way to approach such situations. If the government does take this measure, they should ensure that people are properly conveyed the intent behind it and ensured, in every possible way, that it's only for their own safety.
It's a complex balance. Yes, restricting freedom during a state of emergency can be justified for public safety, but it's crucial to ensure such measures are temporary, proportionate, and transparent to maintain trust and respect for individual rights.
You made an interesting point about ensuring such measures are temporary, proportionate, and transparent to maintain trust and respect for individual rights - can you outline two examples of how this can be done to ensure people don't feel restricted?
Restricting freedom for the sake of safety is a personal decision that is based on opinion. While some might prioritise individual liberties, others could argue that it is essential for the public's health.
It depends actually on the situation and whether it is an emergency on not.
If it is needed for safety reasons we need to measure each option and decide on the best for humanity.
However in my mind we can prevent in a way restriction if we are more ready to why we need such an action.
For example like in Ecuador is there a possibility to prevent before it happens?
And let's not forget during the pandemic, our restriction lead to many other problems, students lost their face to face interaction with their friends and teachers and their coming back at school was a bit confusing to them.
Is it right to take people’s freedom away in the name of safety though? This question is not quite simple. During emergencies, for instance an emergency in Ecuador, limitations are often put in place to help protect the public health and welfare. For preservation of safety, even for some period, the restriction of freedom may be acceptable but it is of crucial importance that such measures are proportional, transparent and monitored.
Striking a balance between the pursuit of individual freedom and the public good is tricky. Governments have to communicate easier, justify restrictions’ necessity, and aim at limiting the invasion of personal liberties. A delicate balance between public safety and individual liberty is critical to the confidence that their nation is well-prepared and ready to take on any challenges, creating a resilient society.
When faced with crises, governments may curtail individual liberties to ease threats and protect the public interest. A state of emergency in Ecuador with a curfew at 11 pm till 5 am is a form of control of the spread of COVID-19 or other urgent issues.
The rationale underlying such restrictions is the rule of the greater good. To reduce the transmission of the virus, prevent overload of the medical centers, and eventually save lives, authorities restrict some freedoms temporarily. The basis of this approach lies in the social responsibility theory, which presupposes that personal deeds are not isolated from the community’s wellbeing.
But the problem is to make sure these measures are appropriate, necessary and time-limited. Governments must be accountable, giving clear reasons for the limits and evaluating them regularly. Maintaining the right balance between the publics safety and individual rights is crucial; otherwise, going beyond the acceptable limits can affect the trust and compliance of the individuals.
In addition, the transitory nature of such measures is very important. Persistent monitoring, frequent recalibration, and an attitude of conducive removal when the situation permits are integral elements of reasonable administration. If a balance is not in place, the core values of a democratic society get destroyed, the citizens lose their trust in the authorities.
In other words, while it may be justified to limit freedom for the common good in times of emergency, ensuring accountability, transparency, and proportionality remains a sine-qua-non to respect the democratic values on which the society is founded.
Yes, I believe that it is in fact right to restrict people's freedom, when it is to protect them. Sometimes, the authorities know some extra information, that the civilians don't. That's when it is completely alright to give out some restrictions. This can be true in more than one situation. I think that another great example is: When a parent decides to forbid their children from doing some certain activities. It isn't because they wish to upset them. It is because they wish to protect them.
However, it can sometimes happen that the ones wishing to restrict people's freedom don't actually have a good reason to do so. That's when we should step in and not allow it. I believe that we should have control over our lives. Perhaps total control isn't possible and for a good reason, but we can still control some arias of our lives. We have the right to freedom. I strongly believe that if anyone wants to take it away from us, we need to fight back. By that, I don't mean physical fight. There are other ways of achieving something. There are protests, there exist great arguments for great points of view. The list could go on. I think that as a society, we hold a lot of power and that we can use it whenever the situation asks for it.
In my own opinion, I believe that safety is better than freedom. This is because, when the society is safe and free from crimes people have freedom to move to places of their choice without being scared. But imagine a society that is not safe and people are given freedom, they may end up risking their lives. And also when people are given freedom it gives them the power to misuse and take it for granted and this can lead to social ills like insecurity. Safety is the ability to be free from crimes while freedom is a situation where people are allowed to do anything of their choice. Imagine a society where there is no law and order and citizens are given freedom to do anything of their choice it would lead to the fall of such society . With this point of mine, I strongly agree that safety is better than freedom. Thanks
I agree because yes safety is more important than one's freedom. For one to do anything at this point in time, when Ecuador is under this emergency is to only be safe in order to keep their life safe from the dangers of Fito abd his gang.
And also I agree with what you said that if people are given freedom they have more risk to danger they lives.
In conclusion yes, safety is more important than freedom in all aspects because as you have said, having freedom is risking one's safety so actually at this point in Ecuador being safe is more important than any other amount of freedom in this world, so as to keep one's life safe from dangers of those who are a treat to human beings. So actually one can say that safety is more important than freedom. Thanks.
Whether it is right to restrain people's liberty, in the interest of security, is a question that requires careful consideration both of historical dimensions and ethical principles. At different times in history, government cases of curbing individual freedoms at the times of emergencies have been made on account of the need to protect public health, safety, or security. For example, during the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic, governments implemented quarantine and isolation in their states as mitigative measures to contain the spread of the virus. Moreover, during war times or with natural events, enforced curfews and confinements have been experienced in ensuring the safety of populations. Such precedents underpin that sometimes individual freedom has to be comprised for the sake of the majority in the interest of their well-being.
However, this is to be approached with caution based on principles that protect human rights and should be done transparently, and proportionally, and ensuring accountability so as not to infringe unjustly on personal liberties. The a need for governments to be transparent on how they communicate, reason out on the transmitted restrictions, and review frequently how suitable such measures turn become necessary in ensuring that they do not overdo it. A balance between public safety and people's rights requires delicacy to ensure that governments do not abuse the works of given powers. Thus even if some relaxations during emergencies could be quite justifiable, a highly cautious and ethical approach in such situations has to be maintained so as not to disturb the sensitivity that resides within the balance of the common good and individual liberty.
The question of whether it is right to restrict people's freedom for the sake of safety is subjective and depends on the context, the severity of the situation, and the specific measures in place. It involves a balance between individual freedoms and collective well-being.
In the case of a state of emergency, such restrictions are often implemented to address immediate threats or crises, such as natural disasters or public health emergencies. Governments may argue that these measures are necessary to protect public safety, prevent the spread of a contagious disease, or maintain order during a crisis.
The appropriateness of such restrictions can be debated, considering factors like the severity of the threat, the effectiveness of the measures, and the duration of the restrictions. Public health experts, legal scholars, and policymakers often engage in discussions about finding the right balance between protecting public safety and respecting individual freedoms.
Ultimately, the answer to whether it is "right" to restrict people's freedom for safety reasons can vary among individuals and may depend on the perceived necessity and proportionality of the measures in place.
YES because being safe is very important to people's lives.without safety NO freedom in A country or society
THANK YOU
Yes because Ecuador is trying to protect the public from an emergency such as Fito has escaped from prison. Some people may not agree with the curfew but if they didn't have it Ecuador could be in serious danger. It is a right to restrict people's freedom in this circumstance because they are not trying to do it for no reason just to keep everyone's life safe.
I think that it is right to restrict people's freedom to keep them safe. We have to set up barriers and restrictions otherwise our society will crumble. If we don't restrict some things people will think that they can do whatever the heck they want. We have to restrict so that our generation and the next generation are safe.
Off of the evidence that is provided to the public along with some of my personal beliefs, i would say that it is very much right to restrict people's freedom in order to keep them and others safe. With United States prisons, there are many murderers, serial killers, r*pists, as well as minor law breakers with robberies. These Severe crimes along with large drug king pins should have a majority of their more lenient rights, since these crimes that they have committed are much more inhumane than a small towner robber or minor assault from an aggressor.
Yes , it is right to restrict people’s freedom if it is to keep them safe because if given the freedom also they won’t be safe and there will be fear and danger all around. But the freedom of people should not be taken away from them all the time . It is important then only then it is necessary and when it comes off to safety of people .
I think that it is better to restrict people from freedom if it is for their own safety as it is for the controlling of crimes and the citizens safety. Keeping the citizens safe and protected is the nation's job so it is the right decision to restrict people's freedom for their own safety.
Yes because Ecuador's top priority should be keeping their citizens safe. People should understand that if it's that important that Ecuador has to keep their people inside their homes between 11pm and 5am then it must be a serious situation. So yes, it is right for Ecuador to keep their citizens from leaving their homes between 11pm and 5am for the reason of keeping their people safe.
I think it is understandable why the government would restrict people's freedom for their own safety although we have to understand that people can make their own decisions especially adults. If the government says that they have set a curfew for you I totally understand because it is their job to protect their citizens and they have all the right but at the same time humans are stubborn because we wouldn't allow a person to tell us what to do with our lives and also as humans we also have our own lives. At the end of the day I understan both side but I will have to go with no, people shouldn't be restricted of their freedom to keep them safe.
I believe it is the best way to approach the situation by setting a curfew. Although the citizens may feel as though they are being too restricted, it is in their best interest.
Yes, I think it is right to restrict people's freedom if it is for the right reasons. Given the situation in Ecuador, the safety of the people is extremely important at a time like this. The curfew would help people to remain safe in their houses. Streets have been bombed, police officers have been kidnapped and riots have taken place so normal citizens could easily fall prey to such crimes. If the citizens would stay in their houses during the night then crime would reduce. If such a dangerous criminal is on the run then people's safety should be the top priority. The curfew has been imposed for people's benefit so I think it is only right that they abide by it. And anyway, most people sleep between 11 pm to 5 am so it doesn't even affect their activities much. Hence I think if people's freedom has been restricted for shorter periods for their safety, then it is right.
It is right to restrict people's freedom so far as it is meant to keep them safe because such decisions are only put in place to curb unmanageable situations be it pandemics epidemic outbreaks, or chaos. I remember in 2019, there was a similar situation such as the current predicament in Ecuador in my neighbourhood. The use of illegal drugs among youngsters was rampant, and as a result, soldiers stormed their strongholds to arrest the dealers. It led to retaliation from the dealers and their accomplices and violence and chaos spread like wildfire. I remember the police and military choppers announcing that all inhabitants would be in their domiciles. Hence, a curfew for three days. It looked as if I was deprived of my freedom but it kept me alive. Fortunately, my parents had stocked the kitchen with groceries that were enough to cater for us in that perilous moment. That being said, it is right for people's freedom to be restricted so far as they will be safe. Nonetheless, I hope the government of Ecuador will make provisions for citizens who work nightshifts to have a stable amount to keep them during this curfew.
Wow, thanks for sharing your first-hand experience. I'm sure there would be exceptions for people who had to work during the hours of the curfew, but it might be very expensive to monitor this. Is it worth the cost?
Olivia, I think it is worth the cost. We are talking about a life and death situation at hand here. Indeed, it is only in the interest of protecting the vulnerable citizen, and the national basket could have funds for emergency cases like this. I don't think we would like to risk human lives over expenses in this scenario.
I disagree with your comment. Although it can be true to restrict people for their safety, that is not always the case. While some people keep themselves or others safe by restricting them from objects, places, etc. Like a father restricting his toddler from a knife, so it doesn't hurt. Others learn differently; others might see this as a form of abuse or confinement, especially in children; and some tend to feel neglected because of this. For instance: A little boy uses a bad word for the first time; he just needs to be aware and cautioned not to use it again. The same applies to keeping others safe, but just restricting all scenarios is, in my opinion, a bit too much. The little boy's incident does deserve restriction. Restriction can only be part of a way to keep others safe, but it is not the only way. Another example is that during natural disasters or public health emergencies, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, governments have implemented lockdowns and curfews to limit the spread of the virus. While these measures were necessary for public health, they also disrupted daily life for many people, particularly those who relied on daily wage labor or had limited access to resources.
In my opinion, what the government should have done was provide assistance to affected individuals, such as financial support, access to essential supplies, and alternative means of employment or income. This will at least ensure that, while public safety is prioritized, the rights and well-being of citizens are also safeguarded.
Hello, yes I think restricting people's freedom for the sake of their safety is right, the country has to take care of its citizens at all times, I think that is urgent to do this so that nothing goes wrong and everyone stays safe and secure.
Freedom is also genuinely very important too but I think it's fine to stay at home for a specific period of time just for the sake of safety and security.
But that doesn't mean that controlling people is right but if it is done for the sake of safety then it is actually important and also the best decision for an emergency like this.
From my point of view, in answering the question: Is it correct to restrict freedom of vision if this is for their safety? My answer is yes.
Yes, it is correct to restrict their freedom to preserve their safety and protect them if necessary. Simply put, the one responsible for maintaining security and safety in the cities and the one responsible for the safety of the people is the government, as in my country, Egypt. If something bad happens to the people, the person to blame here is the government for not fulfilling its role in preserving the security, safety, and safety of the people. So if it is them. Those who bear the responsibility, yes, people's freedom can be restricted if necessary to protect them and preserve their safety.
I believe that it is right to restrict people's freedom to keep them and others safe because if a dangerous criminal is free, they will cause harm to the society, it is also true that freedom is equally important as much as safety, but safety needs to be prioritized. For me, its safety first and safety always. It is preferred to freedom because freedom without safety is a dangerous freedom which might lead to regret. That is why societies have restrictions. It enhances safety in a society, without restrictions our society will be a huge bunch of chaos which can hinder the progression of the society and can lead to loss of life. it is thereby proven that safety is not an option but a requirement.
Strongly agree with this, if there is danger government should restrict people’s freedom, I don’t think its restrict we may say it in other word like protection from danger people may not understand it, and I think no government will impose a curfew without strong reason as taking decisions like that is so sensitive since when you impose a curfew many shops and businesses will closed so it means decreasing in the income to the country by that country will collapse. So all governments when they take decision of curfew they take it to protect citizens from big danger
I would say that I agree because safety is an important thing and its better to just follow the rules in order to stay safe and not endanger themselves or others. However, freedom should maybe be a choice because the people should decide what to do and which fate they choose, but again, its better for them to stay safe following the rules than not.
I strongly believe that it is right to restrict peoples freedom for their safety though it is not liked by most people i think it is the right thing to do for their protection and safety. A lot of people would argue about curfew that they have their rights to freedom they are citizen who need to practice their rights but it is a citation of national security and the their protection is also the job of the government the only reason that curfews are put in to place is for their protection and the curfew is put to place to control the security of people people aren't safe on the streets in ecuador because of criminal rampaging the street and I'd like to give another instance the covid 19 pandemic if curfews weren't put the covid 19 virus would have spread even more than it did curfews are for satey and i support the government on the curfew
Thank YOU
Personally I believe that one always has restrictions imposed upon them simply because they are in society. the law will always demand certain things from you. This is always the case even if you can change it, nobody is above the law even the world leaders.
therefore I think that having a curfew is necessary in this particular case because for the good and safety of Ecuadorian people.
When it comes to implementing restrictions, I believe it's all about looking out for each other's well-being. Just like how we remind our friends to buckle up in the car or wear helmets when biking, certain rules and regulations are in place to keep everyone safe and happy.
This is because at the end of everything the people of Ecuador are being saved from possible ransom kidnappings and shootings due to the escaped convict .
So, while restrictions might seem a bit annoying at times, let's remember that they're there for a reason – to keep us all safe and protected.
Hello.
Safety is better than freedom because if you're safe. for instance, a man who is walking around without safety concerns will have the misconception of getting lost. The earth without safety the will be all c
Yes,I think restricting people’s freedom to keep them safe is good because if a huge crime wave is happening you need to save your self from dying and is for your own good,I know some of you think restricting people’s freedom to keep them safe is a bad idea and you are allowed to have your freedom, but put yourself in the shoes of the citizens of Ecuador, scared of what to do whether you should risk your life because of freedom or to be safe,but the people don’t have a choice they have to be safe in order to protect themselves from dying,The citizens of Ecuador knows that they have the right to be free but they have to put that right aside to save themselves.
I believe that all criminals that have a felony or life without parole should be kept in prison but the rest should be let go. I believe this because all crimes are as serious as people make them out to be. you have people in jail today for defending themselves or speaking out against something they believed to be wrong. so I believe that people who do not have felonies or life sentences should be let go on parole or house arrest.
On one hand, I think that safety over freedom is definitely the right thing to do because whether the citizens like it or not, they have to be kept safe and restricting them is the way to do it. If someone would even just try to break the rules, and go out later than 11pm, then they would be putting themselves in grave danger.
However, it isn't fair on young people who are just coming to that age where all they want to do is go out late at night with their friends - past 11pm. Also, for everyone, their freedom is their responsibility so they should be able to do what they want.
But, in this time of danger, people having that freedom will just create havoc.
So, overall I think that safety over freedom is the only way that won't create chaos in this otherwise peaceful country.
Hello
Well, According to me it actually depends on the condition whether it is right to restrict people's freedom to keep them safe or no
However in this case i feel it is very important to restrict peoples freedom to keep them safe because the people might not realize the intensity of the situation
We might feel Isolated at home in such conditions but lets take an example, that I and my friends plan to go on a trip during such a period, and one of use is either shot or even severely injured
From this we can clearly realize that it would have been better we would have stayed at home instead of risking ones life
That is exactly how we need Safety over Freedom
I believe that in situations like these, individuals must take responsibility for their actions. The government's duty is to provide clear information about the current situation to its citizens. If someone still chooses to prioritize their freedom over their safety, they should have the freedom to do so. In such cases, the individual alone bears responsibility for any consequences that may arise.
This way, people can recognize the importance of prioritizing safety over freedom. By allowing individuals to make their own choices, they can understand the value of their safety and the consequences of their decisions. Additionally, holding individuals accountable for their choices fosters a sense of personal responsibility.
Moreover, this approach also alleviates the burden of accountability from the government. When individuals are empowered to make informed decisions, they are less likely to criticize government actions.
i believe that it is right to restrict people's freedom for safety reasons because the government doesn't want people to die or something bad could happen to them
I agree with you. If a situation is really dangerous like a war or an illness people should stay at home. Their freedom is restricted for their safety. Even more, if someone has done something illegal or hurt another person then he must go to prison and his freedom should be restricted too. If not this person may be a danger for the society.
In my opinion, Yes. I think it is right to restrict people's freedom if it keeps them safe, this is because it helps keep them safe and ensures their security, although on the other hand it will bring many problems for families who depend on their people to work and earn food, during night times such as night shifts. I suggest that the government should ensure the security of the people faster as it hinders the life of many workers greatly.
I feel that it is right to restrict people's freedom if it is to keep them safe.
When Covid first appeared the government told all the citizens to stay inside because the virus was extremely deadly and the doctors hadn't invented a medicine yet.
Furthermore, prisons keep people that committed crimes inside, so that the innocent ones are safe from them. So it is understandable that government does all of these for us to be safe and sound.
yes because without safety, there is no freedom . so the government has to watch out for the people's security to have freedom. If I were a governor I would keep people at home till they are safe to get freedom.
THANK YOU.
Preventing someone's freedom for me its illegal and not right even if you want to keep them safe. Every human has their freedom and we should not it away from them no matter what because my freedom stops when someone's else begins.
Personally, I think it's right to restrict people's freedom to keep them safe otherwise we let them die in our hands.
It doesn't matter how people feel about that, we have to keep them safe . This should be our priority.
If we don't, people will accuse governments, politicians for not taking all the precaution measures to be all of them safe.
I believe that in a life or death situation such as this, a persons safety is at risk from the many criminal gangs roaming the streets, therefore, someones freedom should be taken away, if it is determining their life. After all, why would someone want to be free if they wouldn't be alive to enjoy it? Say you were in a bank that was being robbed. Wouldn't you give up your money for your life? Is this not similar if not identical to the prospect of giving up your freedom for your safety? And anyway, you would have the rest of your life to enjoy your freedom, or have already had a long life to enjoy it.
If what the video said was correct, then many police members had been captured, therefore who would you trust to make sure nothing bad happened to you outside your house? I as myself would say," What is the point of going outside anyway? I appreciate shopping and other necessary items involve one or two people going outside, but why would you do that during the curfew anyway? This shows that I would not risk my safety for my freedom.
Thank you for all the other incredible comments that led me to my opinion here.
Freedom is a right for people that they should have it during their whole life. If someone wants to restrict a person's freedom for the safety, they can't of course do it by imposing it. You can consult and advise them why it is necessary to do it and try to peesude them but the decision is their own human right.
I think it's justifiable to restrict freedom. It is for the greater good that came with the global pandemic a few years back. We are all restricted of freedom to protect themselves. It was extremely boring for all of us but we prevented the worst. It is a sacrifice worth to be made. In conclusion,if freedommight tale your life then restrict it.
Although freedom is a human right that is valued, I believe it should be taken away from people at some point because of safety. If for some reason in Ecuador, an emergency broke out, I think it is right to put a curfew to prevent further accidents. Because this might be due to criminal activities and if someone is killed, the government will be responsible for the person's death as they are responsible for the country's security. It is far better to put in place a curfew to prevent the deaths of many others than to permit further movement of people by free will in the name of " freedom". As they say " prevention is better than cure ".
In my opinion no and yes restricting people's freedom in order to keep them safe is a complex question that does not have a straightforward answer. Some argue that it is necessary to impose certain limitations on individuals for the greater good of society. They believe that putting restrictions on people's actions can prevent harm and maintain overall safety. On the other hand, there are those who argue that personal freedom should be upheld at all costs. They believe that individuals should have the right to make their own choices, even if it involves some level of risk. Ultimately, whether it is right or wrong to restrict people's freedom for the sake of safety depends on one's personal beliefs and values. But if I had to pick between yes and no I would pick no
This topic is something that has been argued for decades and there can be a strong argument for either side. However, I think it is important to prioritize safety before freedom. I believe there can be forgiveness for everyone however, sometimes there needs to be consequences for ones actions.
I think that it is good to keep people safe even if it means to keep someone restricted due to the harm it could do to people. If you let people have freedom then that may not lead to a positive future but then also its good for people to have freedom since everyone should have a free life without having to be restricted.
I think safety is better than freedom, because without being safe no one we can't have freedom. Therefore before having freedom we have to be safe. Safety is more important than freedom. However government having to secure their follow from danger or hazardious conditions in life . Thank you for Reading.
Hello, thoughtful_hedgehog.
I agree because... as citizen's of a country, safety or security of a country is to the benefit of all the citizens. We as young ones could aid in our personal safety by strictly adhering to rules and regulations given to us which will aid our discipline as future patriots , as we will be protected from whatever danger that may befall us and will thereby be free from danger.
In conclusion, we are not too young to make a difference as change starts with you.
Thank you.
As I see it it is right to restrict people's freedom for safety.Owing to the fact that if people were to go out in the dangers of Ecuador where gangs are having essentially full blown war and starting riots.If they went out into this they would either be seriously injured or maybe even killed.Another time something like this happened was with covid-19 we had a curfew and were kept out of certain places so we do not get sick. This justifies the reason why I say yes or agree with the government to moderate people's freedom to keep them safe.
i believe that safety is much more valuable then freedom as an example to show my point image our world, the world that we live in today. Now image it with no prison, no laws, no consequence a free and lawless where no one is safe from a brutal murderous rampage. If anyone and everyone was free to do what they want then racism, sexism and homophobia would be a fair belief across the world. If you were free to do anything you want then would you go to your job? What if you were a doctor then you would leave innocent civilians to bleed out. Medical care would die out and we would regress all the way back to the stone era. But if we have a heavier focus of safety over freedom then laws could me structure and we might turn more to helping our only planet; earth could be supported in a way to make it a safer place. Plus the idea of safety will also reach mental health too. We could have a better therapy system to help children who have suffered from abuse or because of tightier rules we could make it harder for abusers to hide. That is why i believe safety is more important then freedom. I would love it if someone would challenge me about this concept and try to turn my view to freedom.
Hi!! Well for me freedom is the right you have to make personal choices for you. These choices should not show any discrimation against others or put them at risk from. It's our ultimate right to feel free but we have also responsibilities. These two should not be mixed. They are different. When a family wants to keep their children safe then sometimes freedom can be restricted or differently parents should behave responsibly.
Hello 👋
I can say that ok I agree (yes) which was (is it right to restrict people’s freedom if it’s to keep them safe). Yes or no? I said at the beginning that I agreed but why? What is happening in Ecuador is a total disaster which means they need to have ultra-safety which Ecuador is trying to give them. As we learned gangs and other types of crimes are evolving and the killing percentage has doubled Furthermore they let them go out of their homes but they argue when it's 5 am to 11 pm so they are just trying to keep them safe but that doesn't mean that freedom doesn't matter and they also try to provide you freedom
Thanks
I believe that it depends on the situation. If it is a life or death situation then of course it will be better to be safe than sorry. Freedom can be helpful, but there is a difference between freedom and stupidity.
Think like this: a group of friends are wandering in the night sky, heading to bars, eating in restaurants, and having a blast. Suddenly, they hear a woman crying, they approach her, trying to help her, then they are all knocked out, it was a trap, a trap by human traffickers.
Another group of friends sees the kidnapping happen, but instead of rushing head on, they get on their motorcycles and follow the van. They find the hideout and call the police, the police gets a SWAT team to apprehend the traffickers. The mission is a huge success, and the SWAT team find hundreds of people ready to be shipped off, and spend the rest of their life as human meat.
Preparation is when freedom, security, and luck all come together, setting each other off in a chain reaction.
Bottom line is this: always be free, but always be secure.
Hello everone,
In my opinion, I think it is absolutely right to restrict people's freedom if it's to keep them safe . In Ecuador the condition is worsing day by day , so peoples should try to be safe from this problem. The authority of ecuador has set the state of emergency for 60 days and they done all this for safety of peoples . So the peoples also should understand it and follow the instructions given by them. People should not think that "we have lose our freedom , we cannot do whatever we want and all"and think that if we will be in home , we will be safe.
I think it's right to restrict their movements. It's the responsibility of the government to protect lives and properties in the country. It's actually for the benefit of the people in the country to avoid losses, This law is made mostly for the young people who behave nonchalantly towards the news, it would also pass a message to the people telling them how critical the situation is in the country. It may also be hard for us citizens for instance if a person has a business encures a loss due to the restrictions.
Yes I believe it is right to restrict people's freedom if it is meant to keep them safe, because if we are safe we don't need freedom only Protection and safety. If we are not safe than we have every right to have our freedom because there is no help in restricting us from our freedom if they cannot protect us or even keep us safe. safety is need even with or without freedom. A society that is not safe is a dead society.
THANK YOU!!!!
If they want the people to be safe it is absolutely right to restrict them from leaving the curfew. The things which happen in Ecuador was not completely safe for the people to leave their houses and move out. It was really important for them to be in their houses. It is nothing wrong if the have to stay in the between 11 to 5 this is for their safety. But there should be something done to stop the things which are done by gangsters. Because no one can stay in a house for more days.
I think safety is better, because even if we did freedom weak people won't have their freedom , because stronger people will apply their freedom on weaker people , and so weak ones won't have a chance to do anything .In addition everyone will steal and kill everyone. Everyone will fight about who will have money and food and to stay alive , so people will only think about themselves . We will be like lions in the forest fighting about who will eat the prey and stay alive.
I think it is fair because we are helping you to stay safe and to protect you. We are asking you to make a choice be safe or be in prison because if you don'tstsy in your homes between 11pm and 5am , then you are breaking the law and going to prison. Following those laws could really save your life in the precarious world we have as you might not actually know what is goung out there of you are not actually watch the news like me. The President of Ecuador, Daniel Noboa, isn't President to look cool , he is President to keep his country safe , provide laws that are really necessary. I would rather be safe than sorry. Ecuador is in danger npw that Fito is out, he could be anywhere and no one knows or maybe someone does. It is really important thst they keep dafe and protected out there. Safety always needs to be thought of before anything else. Safety is protection. Safety is no danger. Safety is no risk. People need to realise safety is important. It is always necessary. The fact that your countries' President and government and people like that want to protect me and that care so you shoild accept that. That curfew is compulsory. It acts as a barrier.
Hello everyone,
In my opinion I agree with the above opinions. In my opinion it is absolutely right to limit people's freedom to keep them safe. Because a man's freedom can never be greater than his life. If a man is not alive then what will he do with freedom? I live in Bangladesh. In 1971 when there was a war in our country, the government of my country announced curfew. The proof of that is that we are independent in 2024. I do not mean to say that a person's freedom is not important. A man's freedom is important to him, it is his right, but if a man is not alive, he will be enslaved for life. He will never be free again. So, in conclusion I would say that there is nothing wrong with suspending a man's freedom for a little while if he is to live. If you ask 100% of the world's people to choose between freedom and survival, 99% of the 100% will choose survival. Hope I was able to understand everyone.
THANKS.
Hi,
I think that it is fair for people not to leave their homes between 11pm and 5am but ONLY if it is for people safety.I think this as I have seen many young adults and teenagers on their way home from school just staring at their phones not aware of the dangers that,that could come to.People normally target younger people as they are younger and don't know what can happen.Younger people are also not as strong and as smart as others.I know that some people at a young age might know more than an 80 year old will but that is another thing.Much older people will also get targeted by bad people as they are slower or they not as strong as a 30 year old would be.
What I am trying to say is that people in the age gap of 0-20 and 80-100 aren't as strong and aware as people between 20-80 will be as when you are at a young age you haven't been taught about these thing but when you are older you forget the dangers of the world.
Thankyou.
Freedom is the ultimate human right and all people should feel free to practice it.
However safety is another important issue to keep in mind.
For me, people who are in more vulnerable position such as children, homeless, people with health issues ,it is acceptable to restrict them for not risking their life.
For instance, in wars an alarm may restrict citizens at their home for their safety.
It is Nittany logical to restrict them but we need at the same time find possible solutions to regain their freedom again.
I do believe it is right to restrict freedom to keep people safe. I think this is because if they are let out in these times and are then harmed not only is the government blamed for this but then it also makes the whole of the country chaotic. If it could harm you to go out at those times why would you want to? It seems like an obvious choice even if it wasn't law. I would rather be safe than be allowed to go out from 11:00 to 5:00. In addition to this most people are sleeping in. these times anyway and unless there is an emergency then you shouldn't need to leave your house anyway. I understand that others may say it is restricting their rights and they should get their own choices but even with this I don't believe people will make the right choice and that endangers them.
I believe that it would be fair to restrict people's freedom/ set curfews. Removing peoples basic rights sounds bad, and it is, but in cases like this, it is very fair as it is to keep the people that are already in danger from getting hurt by the gang members. If there was no curfew, people would go out at night and they would be in grave danger due to the gang members roaming the street.
I think it is ok to restrict people's freedom to keep them safe. Ecuador should always keep the citizens safe, and if it requires keeping people from going out at a certain time, then that's what they should do. Going out between 11:00 PM and 5:00 AM could be dangerous because of the kidnappings, violence and prisoners breaking out of their cells. During a state of emergency, I think a curfew is important and necessary. Fito could be anywhere at anytime, and there should always be safety regulations when things like this happen.
I think that it's right to restrict people's freedom as long as it keeps them safe. I think this, because the people in countries that are in a state of emergency right now like Ecuador may be going out at the time that the curfew are supposed to prohibits them, and they could come across gangsters in the street and get themself in danger. So I think that the curfew is necessary to keep the people away from the danger of drug gangs.
I would say yes but also no. I'd say that because it takes people away from being a human, but if people know what's going on then they should want to be safe. If people feel restricted and know the danger if they don't we should not give them a curfew. We should let them know why they should listen to the news and stay safe also, and if they don't care let them be. Let them be because they are the ones who want to be in danger. It's what they want. So if they don't want to be safe it's their fault.
Thank you for acknowledging me.
Hope you have a wonderful day.
In my opinion it is right to give a curfew to Ecuador because with all the riot and chaos going on in Ecuador, it may get worse if if no one steps up to stop it. I also believe that because the prison system is already bad there, so if more people escape at that timing innocent people will most likely be killed or endangered.
In my opinion I think that it was right of them to keep people at home from 11pm-5am because this was most likely made to try and stop the violence or at the least slow it down, and keep people safe. For example if someone leaves their home they could get seriously injured, but if they stayed home for the night and then went out there could be a lower chance of getting hurt. This happens, since criminals tend to be much more active at night. Staying at home could make citizens safer. It is not forever, just 60 days.
In my opinion, it is right to restrict people's freedom to keep them safe. I believe this because, A powerful drug leader escaped prison, started riots with prisoners, kidnapping police, and other thing that would be to dangerous to have the people of Ecuador around because they might become a victim of the prisoners that escaped. The public curfew for kids and adults in Ecuador can keep them safe. Although, people in their homes can still be victims of prisoners and the riots that come along, their homes are the safest place they can be in and the curfew can help prevent people getting hurt or killed in the night.
In my opinion Without freedom you have no safety. In a dictatorship the first thing the they do is pack all dissidents off to jails or worse.Read about Myanmar, one minute it was a free country, the next the citizens were being jailed by the thousands. And we also need to be safe from the environment because some peoples intentions are not good they want to harm someone Safety is a fallacy. But then again, so is freedom, for we are all trapped by whatever circumstance we find ourselves.
I agree with these curfews because people need to stop risking their lives for some fun. I know that many people want to watch a movie late at night, however they do not know the dangers of being alone while killers are out. Many people have kids and they want the best for them. This means that parents would agree with the curfew because some parents' situation is that they cannot leave the area where many bad people are and have to endure the challenges. Overall, a curfew is good to protect the citizens even if it limits their freedom.
I feel it is right to restrict people’s freedom if it’s to keep them safe, because it there is danger outside, then simply there is no freedom. It is important to stay at home in a state of emergency, like in Ecuador. Although it can have many negative sides, but safety of people should be kept at most priority. If a murderer or a criminal is roaming outside a person's house and if the person's entire family, including him can be threatened, it is, I feel, better to be at home and remain safe.
Citizens' freedom is necessary, nobody should be afraid of going anywhere because a dreaded criminal is free. But, if the criminal is not being caught, it's not against rights to keep curfew until the criminal is found, for the better future, no massacre and presently, among all, safety of the public.
No I believe you should not limit someones right unless it has something to do with visiting or putting another persons right in jeopardy,and if that does happen then they should have their rights revoked.I believe if someone puts their self in jeopardy then they would have to face the consequences for themselves, but besides that they shouldnt have their rights limited.Or unless they did something in the past so you know you have to revoke their rigths
Yes, it is right to restrict people's freedom, even if it is to keep them safe. This is because people's freedom doesn't matter if they are unsafe at that time or if they are making other people unsafe or harming someone else. This is the literal meaning of what prison is and this is why I think that prison is helpful to the society.
Hello Topical Talkers,
In my opinion I think that the 60-day curfew is the best way of protecting people. If they are allowed to roam freely around Ecuador, Fito's men are on a rampage and can attack anyone anywhere. But with the curfew, the safety of the citizens is gauranteed.
THANK YOU!!!
Hi,
Actually from my own perspective I agree with restricting people form their own rights because it is, for the betterment of the safety of the individuals in the particular state. Remember that in a state of emergency, it is not just to probably reduce their life activities or so, but it is to protect and to be sure of safety for the people.
So as to curfew them is for the betterment of the people from my own point of view I will say that it is right.
So in conclusion, what I am trying to say is that it is right to curfew them form their own life activities so as to protect and to ensure the betterment for the people.
Thanks.
Yes, it is a complex balance. Ensuring public safety often involves making difficult decisions that may temporarily restrict individual freedoms. In emergency situations, authorities may impose curfews to limit movement during specific hours. The goal is to mitigate risks, prevent the spread of disease, and protect lives from the gang members. However,even though it is the safest option many civilians will be mad because they would have to lose their night shift jobs or will feel like they are just trapped. it’s essential to continually evaluate these measures, consider their impact on civil liberties, and maintain transparency to strike the right balance between safety and personal freedom,that way Ecuador can feel like a freedom place once again.
I think that it is ok to restrict people's freedom to keep them safe, however I wouldn't want the restriction to be to harsh. Maybe I could go outside my house but not into the streets, or I could sit outside my porch but not go to McDonald's. If the restriction would be to harsh such as people not being able to go outside without being arrested, how would people make money or be able to stay sane? Would you be able to stay sane or be ok with being inside without anything... Would you really?
Would there be any situation where you think harsh restrictions are acceptable? This reminds me of a certain news story from 2020!
Well. Maybe, it really depends on the surrounding. Say it was unrealistic "a zombie apocalypse", that would be the time to get swat to lock everyone up in their homes and clean out the zombies until there are not any more zombies. Or a very deadly virus that contracts through people only. Once those who had it die out people should be allowed to go outside again. I say this because if you force people to quarantine or wear masks they are probably not going to do it (shown because of Covid 19)
I feel that no it is not right to RESTRICT peoples freedom even if it is to keep them safe. Of course they may feel they are doing the right thing or maybe their just trying to protect themself but main thing is they shouldn't force a curfew . This problem can last forever so what are they going to make this a until the prisoner dies or until he is caught. They should recommend it and give a speech on why and keep pushing it towards people but not on them that is wrong. People should have freedom and chocies but if it is forced it will be broken. People don't want to be controlled they want to be considered and heard. This is a huge issue but the curfew is unfair.
You mentioned that people could give a speech. If you were giving that speech, what points would you make?
They could make points about why they think curfew should be used. Why it is dangerous. What could happen and if they decide to add time when would it be and why. They should talk about the when, why, and how it would work . So they can convince people to get on board.
In my opinion it is sometimes better to restrict people's freedom to keep them safe, with night culture being very popular these days especially among teenagers and people in their early twenties, they might run into trouble not even realizing the same so it is better to make a law to avoid any complications. This curfew nevertheless won't cause any problems to commoners with a job or any professionals and for the people who have a night shift either they should be given an alternate job or the government should provide them with compensation for the same. However in any case there should be a margin of freedom for the people who may have some medical emergencies and would require to go out for the same during this time.
Yes, it is right to restrict people’s freedom if it's to keep them safe. The government restricts people’s freedom when they are in danger. During a crisis and emergency situation, the primary goal is to keep their people safe. By implanting curfews the government makes sure that no one can harm their citizens lives. Restricting freedom can help in maintaining order and preventing the situation.
In case of a health crisis like a pandemic. limiting people's movement can be crucial to prevent the rapid spread of infectious diseases. Curfews and stay-at-home orders can reduce contact between individuals and help to reduce the curve of infection rates. For example : during Covid19 pandemic,every country of the world made a decision to keep their citizens at home so that they couldn’t gather together. That's how they wouldn’t be able to spread the infection.
Also, during natural disasters or terrorist threats restricting people’s freedom is crucial . It can help to safeguard individuals. It allows authorities to focus on essential tasks like rescue operations. For example : during flood the government gives their best to rescue the people of the affected community. For this reason, they restrict people’s freedom.
That's why I think it is right to restrict people’s freedom if it's to keep them safe.
i think that because it changes between people, it should be optional as long as they have protection because theres different pyschologies in the world, some want to be safe and some want to be free more. my personal opinion is anything can happen to you and it is not a very big deal to not go out in fixed hours for 2 months because as i mentioned anything can happen to you and you should make sure you are secure.
Hi!
I think that....
The decision to impose a state of emergency and implement curfew measures in Ecuador raises complex ethical and practical considerations. While restrictions on freedom of movement may be necessary to mitigate public health risks and ensure the safety of the population.
Whether it is "right" to restrict people's freedom in such circumstances can depend on various factors, including the severity of the threat, the effectiveness of alternative measures, and the extent to which the restrictions are proportionate, transparent, and subject to oversight.
Ultimately, the justification for imposing restrictions on freedom should be weighed against the potential benefits in terms of public health and safety. In some cases, temporary measures may be deemed necessary to contain the spread of infectious diseases or prevent other imminent threats, but it's essential to ensure that such measures are applied judiciously and with respect for human rights and democratic principles.
Thank you.