There seems to be general distrust of government in western society. When people in Chile seem to have no problem with the curfew, why are non-Chileans so concerned?
>"Emergency" alone does not justify curfews. Curfews are only justified if they are reasonably expected to actually affect the thing that is driving the emergency. This may well be the case with a disease, but here the emergency is simply that the infrastructure needs to be restored.
This makes no sense.. Sometimes, you treat the symptoms, sometimes you take preventive measures against the symptoms while you buy time to address the root cause.
Why do you think that? Stating a difference in civic requirements does not change any of the arguments put forward. I can move around a city without electricity. And so can you.
> There seems to be general distrust of government in western society. When people in Chile seem to have no problem with the curfew, why are non-Chileans so concerned?
This may not be a popular view in the U.S. government right now, but there are good reasons to distrust governments. In fact, most societies have embedded this distrust into the government itself through interlocking powers, constitutions, rule of law, etc.. The desire for good government decisions is not unique to the people of Chile.
> Sometimes, you treat the symptoms, sometimes you take preventive measures against the symptoms while you buy time to address the root cause.
Note how vague you seem to remain about the actual benefits of a curfew. It's a pattern we see in many of the replies on this thread. I think this vagueness is probably an indicator that some commenters don't really know a good reason, but feel the need to argue in favour of a curfew.
... although I do not really understand this motivation. It's a policy decision like countless others, and I have no strong feelings one way or the other - but maybe I'm missing the emotional part.
Because that genuinely is dangerous?
Do you deny that people are more likely to commit crimes of opportunity when the lights are off, security cameras are offline, and communication systems are down?
A rise in the likelihood of crime is a gradual, probabilistic matter, whereas a curfew is an absolute, binary restriction on freedoms. (Although in this particular case, fortunately, it seems to be quite lax.) If power outages were a sufficient justification for curfews, we would need clear, documented evidence of the crime increase, measured against other contributing factors, and balanced with the fundamental rights being restricted.
In Germany, for example, crime (and hospitalization) spikes on New Year's Eve—yet no one seriously argues for a curfew every December 31st. The mere presence of an increased risk does not automatically override the need for a proportional response.
Otherwise, any statistical uptick in crime could be used as a pretext to suspend civil liberties without proper consideration of competing rights and interests.
None of this is new knowledge.
I was there for a couple of weeks visiting friends back then and we even used a ridiculous, ad-laden app to look up "our" blackout times. It is also a strong case study for large-scale consumer-led solar expansion, perhaps together with Pakistan. ( https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/11/pakistan-solar-power... )
On the African continent alone, it is estimated that some 600 million people in sub-Saharan Africa still have no access to reliable electricity. (Src.: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/0f028d5f-26b1-47ca-... ) Reliable and non-discriminatory (at least not prohibitively expensive) access to electricity remains a serious human development issue.
Chile has a history of looting after natural disasters. It also has a history of massive protests that often cause damage and sometimes turn violent. (The current president certainly knows, as he was a big student leader during one wave of student protests.) In a country like that, a one-night curfew is a reasonable precaution after a country-wide blackout.
Then travel there during the day? Why do you then need to go outside at night?
This comment doesn't seem to have gone down well with the community, but I wonder why. "Emergency" alone does not justify curfews. Curfews are only justified if they are reasonably expected to actually affect the thing that is driving the emergency. This may well be the case with a disease, but here the emergency is simply that the infrastructure needs to be restored.
My parents have a place in the German countryside and they are practically self-sufficient in terms of energy. I would definitely want to take the opportunity to visit them, catch up with them, use the time in a socially productive way, etc. I have done countless treks, even for weeks at a time, without having to depend on continuous electricity.
Why should there be a curfew just because there is no electricity on the grid?
Imagine doing rolling curfews in countries like South-Africa synced with rolling blackouts - just because some vague and hand-wavy "oh so dangerous". Sounds surreal.