If that’s the case why isn’t worded like that?
The best part? You have direct say in how much it should be collected or not collected.
But the wording choices makes me think that this is not about what it is claimed to be. That start sounding like libertarian agenda pushing, which is fine but it’s very manipulative.
>But the wording choices makes me think that this is not about what it is claimed to be. That start sounding like libertarian agenda pushing, which is fine but it’s very manipulative.
We can debate whether taxation counts as "confiscation" or not, but the argument works just as well if you replace "confiscating" with "taxing", ie. '... can you say the government isn't taxing people's money "against their will", because ...'
>The best part? You have direct say in how much it should be collected or not collected.
So what, if you get to vote on it, it doesn't count as being "against your will"?
Anyway, let's not pretend that the governments are aliens that you may choose to vote for or not. You can also participate in the government, population and the government are not different entities even in places like Cuba or DPRK(but their participation frameworks are really shitty, requiring stuff like obedience and close relationship).
You can realistically opt out of amazon purchases. Opting out of a country isn't realistically an option due to citizenship/immigration laws.
>Anyway, let's not pretend that the governments are aliens that you may choose to vote for or not. You can also participate in the government, population and the government are not different entities even in places like Cuba or DPRK(but their participation frameworks are really shitty, requiring stuff like obedience and close relationship).
Okay but what does being able to participate in government have anything to do with whether something's "against my will" or not? I might have had a chance to influence that will, but that changes nothing about the fact that the government's will is against mine.
As far as I'm aware, an individual's rights to "life, liberty and security of the person" are not absolute. Whether it is a violation of the charter is a balance between the impact of the limitation (e.g. vaccine passport) vs. the impact of not imposing the limitation (e.g. higher ICU counts or whatever). The more arbitrary or severe the limitation, the more risk must be mitigated to justify the limitation.
The Canadian mandate prevents unvaccinated truckers from coming into Canada.
Which is to say, it’s preventing unvaccinated Americans from coming in, because there aren’t any unvaccinated Canadians allowed into the US from which to return.
And even if an unvaccinated Canadian trucker were to somehow get into the US, they’d still be allowed back, because the government can’t prevent a Canadian from returning home.
Nobody said that. You're making a straw man argument.
There ware other ways to force than a physical strength and threats of violence. In Canada if you lose your job because of a vaccine mandates you can't claim unemployment benefits or welfare. I can't believe I have to explain this to an adult.
Would the right wording be something like crossing borders regularly in professional capacity requires vaccination? That’s quite different from being forced.
Can someone clarify please? Are they forced against their will or are they required vaccination if they are willing to partake in a certain task like crossing international borders?