[filleduchaos]

> “But if we remove the tourniquet the person will bleed out!”

This is an amazingly apt analogy, just not the one you think it is.

Sure, you can debate about how the person should/would never have been injured in the first place if everybody involved in the situation did everything right. But they are injured, right now, and they will die, right now, if they're not provided with first aid and further medical attention - and until the patient is stabilised, those lofty questions are useless pontifications.

Except it's not just one person at risk. It's millions and millions of people and their livelihood.

[kemonocode]

Leave a tourniquet on for far too long and you risk losing a limb. And a limbless person will have a much lower quality of life. Likewise with capital controls, it might serve to treat the problem now but it does nothing to tackle the causes and all you're doing in the end is consolidating power for an authoritarian government and crippling your economy for decades to come.

[filleduchaos]

As I have already mentioned, a person that's bleeding out requires first aid [now] - which the use of a tourniquet is a part of - and further medical attention.

Emphasis on the further medical attention, because they will simply never be able to get it if first aid is not applied. This is the exact reason why first aid exists, even though it is often technically destructive (e.g. properly administering CPR runs quite a high risk of breaking the patient's ribs).

> And a limbless person will have a much lower quality of life

A person who has lost a limb is alive, and (I digress) the hand-wringing that abled people do over the quality of life of the disabled is a bit weird.

"I'm nowhere near a hospital yet but this tourniquet has been on for ages so let me take it off and continue freely bleeding out" is frankly a foolish decision for anybody to make.