Freedom v safety?

Festival2024_Expert-ChallengeBanners-EmmaHogan5

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?

The state of emergency in Ecuador has been set for 60 days. During this time the public has a curfew and must not leave their homes between 11pm and 5am.

Is it right to restrict people’s freedom if it’s to keep them safe? Yes or no?

Comments (181)

You must be logged in with Student Hub access to post a comment. Sign up now!

  • 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 .

    1. 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.

      1. Hello witty_cheetah ,
        Thank you for your question. I understand that it may be difficult for them

      2. 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.

    2. 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.

    1. 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.

      1. 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.

        1. 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

          1. 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?

            1. 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.

            2. 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!

          2. 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.

            1. 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.

              1. 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.

                1. 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.

            2. 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.

            3. 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!

        2. 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.

      2. 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.

      3. 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".

    2. 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.

      1. 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!!!

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

      1. Thank you for being respectful to younger Topical Talkers.

      2. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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!

    10. 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.

    1. You've done a great job in helping us visualise freedom and safety here.

    2. 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.

    1. 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!

    2. 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 .

    3. 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.....

    1. Who gets to decide if the matter is serious enough?

      1. 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..

      2. 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........

    2. 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.

    3. 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

    4. 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 !

    1. 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".

    1. 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!!!

    2. 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

    1. 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!!

    1. 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.

      1. 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

        1. 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.

    1. 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?

      1. 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.

    2. 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!!!

      1. 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.

    1. 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.

    1. 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.

    1. Can you say more about the different perspectives? What do you think?

      1. 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.

    1. 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.

    1. 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.

    1. 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.

    1. 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.

      1. 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.

    1. 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.

    1. 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 proper