That logic seems like it would outlaw labor strikes too, especially in important industries. Sometimes, holding the economy hostage is the point.
I take exception to the framing of “attempts to settle this.” The government used violence and threat of violence to make the problem go away. There wasn’t an attempt at compromise. Do what I say or else isn’t an attempt to settle.
The recent postal strikes in Canada are an example of the situation you're describing. Eventually the federal government had to step in and break the strike to get the mail system moving again - if the workers refused to comply, against the orders of the government, I actually think strong measures like the freezing of bank accounts would be warranted and supported by most Canadians.
The government should be able to force people to work under worse conditions and less pay they want to? That’s ok if most Canadians support it? Really? I hope you can appreciate just how dangerous this sounds, even if you think my slippery slope has a lot of traction on it.
That's how analogies are supposed to work. How do you expect civil society to function if people only supported civil disobedience when it's their preferred cause?
