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.
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.