> So are you saying that my parents and grandparents, who went on strike and participated in worker unions, were wrong, and that they should have accepted labour laws as they were back then, since those laws were conceived in a democratic society hence they were fair by definition?
No, I'm saying that democracies choose the laws to benefit the people who live in them, as opposed to dictatorships. Sometimes, the people in the democracies aren't smart enough to choose laws that benefit them (like the US states that made laws against vaccine mandates and had predictable healthcare rationing as a result), but that doesn't change the purpose of the democracy or its laws.
> we already have that, in many advanced economies
And those advanced economies are free to open up. Denmark already has. Canada, whether by having too low a vaccination rate or too little healthcare, is not among them. Hence, the need for mandates to get there.
> preventing someone from having a barbie on a certain day vs. firing someone from their job - not exactly two comparable situations
You're comparing a law with a punishment for breaking a law, which is a nonsensical comparison, as you apparently agree, but why make it? The key comparison is whether both laws are beneficial, and they are.
I'm not, "loosing your job" is not a punishment, it's an effect of the mandate. The punishment would be being fined or going to jail for still driving a truck despite the mandate.
No, I'm saying that democracies choose the laws to benefit the people who live in them, as opposed to dictatorships. Sometimes, the people in the democracies aren't smart enough to choose laws that benefit them (like the US states that made laws against vaccine mandates and had predictable healthcare rationing as a result), but that doesn't change the purpose of the democracy or its laws.
> we already have that, in many advanced economies
And those advanced economies are free to open up. Denmark already has. Canada, whether by having too low a vaccination rate or too little healthcare, is not among them. Hence, the need for mandates to get there.
> preventing someone from having a barbie on a certain day vs. firing someone from their job - not exactly two comparable situations
You're comparing a law with a punishment for breaking a law, which is a nonsensical comparison, as you apparently agree, but why make it? The key comparison is whether both laws are beneficial, and they are.