▶ Your Answer :
Some people think that people's freedom is always a top priority. However, in my opinion, there should be times when people's freedom is suppressed. This is because inhibiting people's freedom often needs to ensure people's safety and to protect others' right.
To begin with, prohibiting people from exerting their freedom helps protect citizens from hazard in certain situation. There are unpredictable circumstances such as a war and terror. In that setting, if the government permits them to wield their freedom, there must be a chaos. For example, in united states, there happened 911 terror. At that time, the U.S.A government should have limit their citizen's freedom to protect them from unprecedented danger. If an individual has done everything they wanted, more people would be injured and it take more time to restore. The government could shield the disaster thanks to their control over citizens.
On top of that, it makes an individual not to invade other people's freedom. People think that they can do anything under freedom. However, that is not the truth. People sometimes should not express their desire not to harm others. If all people think their own freedom as the top priority, catastrophe would happen. For instance, In cinema, a person cannot answer his or her phone call because it invades other people's right to watch a movie in quiet setting. However, if that person blindly take the phone call and talk long time due to his or her freedom, it would be not a responsible attitude as a democratic citizen.
To sum up, sometimes people's freedom should be limited to protect their safety and an individual's freedom. In this regard, I strongly argue that it makes sense that people's freedom can be invaded from time to time.
|