It depends on the mandate but the gun barrel is generally at the end of a long chain of escalating non-cooperation that starts with a sternly worded letter.
Some governments are more trigger-happy than others, but at least in gentler societies, to get to the point where you're looking at a gun barrel, you'd probably have to respond somewhere along that chain with significant violence yourself.
In societies where you are allowed to carry a gun, the government having an even bigger gun is rather implied by the word enforced, because a mandate couldn't be called enforced if the police could only hand sternly-worded letters to you while you ignore it and shot at them.
You're drawing a false equivalence between "contracts between private parties" and "private properties"
By and large, the government does not come take away your freedom for breach of private party contracts. There are some exceptions, where we wrote law (government mandate) elevating some types of private party contract.
But generally, no, me violating your NDA won't escalate to the government shooting me, no matter how uncooperative I am.
If the defendant is ordered to pay damages and refuses, then the government does step in eventually, doesn't it? A continued refusal to comply eventually leads to arrest. That does not necessarily involve a gun, but presumably parent commenter is using the phrase for rhetorical effect.
Ultimately, enforcing (almost) any law does come down to use of force if the guilty party is intransigent enough. Exceptions are when some thing can be "snatched" away and held truly inaccessible to the guilty party, such that they cannot possibly retrieve it.
Wage garnishment is a pretty effective way to collect civil judgements sans violence, I think.
Not sure what happens if you have a civil judgement entered against you and then quit having income. (Not reporting income is probably a real Crime, and they’d go after you for that)
>If the defendant is ordered to pay damages and refuses, then the government does step in eventually, doesn't it? A continued refusal to comply eventually leads to arrest.
Are we talking about "first order enforcement" or not?
If we are, neither private contracts nor vaccine mandates are directly enforced at the barrel of a gun - the RCMP aren't busting down people's doors to shoot them for failing to get vaccinated, just as people aren't immediately killed by the feds for violating legal contracts.
If we're talking about how they're ultimately enforced, if all else fails...well, they're both enforced the same way.
The police (who carry guns) have shut down events for mandate violations in Canada, and arrested people. (There was a particularly stubborn anti-vax pastor in Alberta IIRC.)
For private disputes, it’s also not uncommon to have an armed officer help enforcement. Consider an extremely common private contract dispute - an eviction - where the police may come to remove the tenant.
The “barrel of a gun” is of course a metaphor, but first order enforcement can be closer than you think.
All you're doing here is arguing with yourself: you agree that the barrel of a gun is, in the final analysis, ultimately used to enforce both vaccine mandates and private contracts. Therefore an opposition to things being enforced at the barrel of a gun alone is an incoherent reason to oppose vaccine mandates and not private property.
Honestly, I’m not sure what point you are arguing here, let alone what you think I am arguing. I’m certainly not opposed to mandates solely because they’re enforced at the barrel of the gun (because yes, obviously that is every law in existence). But since we’ve clearly lost the thread or perhaps we’re mixing each other up, let’s just call it a day.
I don't understand what this argument means. Aren't all rules enforced by whatever incentive or deterrent attached to the rule? Is "No parking from 9pm to 6am" enforced at the barrel of a gun?
Certainly yes. You are fined. If you accumulate several fines, you will eventually be arrested. If you resist the arrest, you will find where the barrel of the gun is ;)
For sure. You may get a ticket the first couple times, then they'll take you to jail (where you cannot drive). If you insist on continuing to drive, that means you have to resist going to jail. Resisting going to jail is an excellent way to have force used on you, up to and including guns.
Heck, if the right country wants you in jail for the right reasons, you could flee somewhere else and have the _Air Force_ used against you.
No, but you'll get detained and then you'll like your freedom back so you'll try to walk away, but they won't let you. If you insist, you'll eventually get shot.
So you're saying that, in your region, it's possible to have a warrant (say, for failure to appear at your unpaid-ticket trial) and avoid jail by... running away? Indefinitely?
They won't arrest you the next chance they get (say, when your plate shows up on a scanner)?
I'd propose that avoiding jail indefinitely will eventually lead to violence in any halfway-organized jurisdiction. And if you start shooting, eventually the government will shoot back.
All over a driving misdemeanor. We just assume that reasonable people won't let these things escalate that far, but yes: Every law written is ultimately enforced by a man (or woman) with a gun.
If we’re arguing technicalities, a gun is not strictly speaking required. If it’s you against 20 cops they can just physically subdue you and throw you in jail. At no point they even need to threaten to shoot you. So a threat of physical force - yes. Actual guns and deadly force - not in every situation.
They will shoot you to defend themselves and others if necessary. But not to prevent you from escaping. They will overpower you if they get the chance.
Bottom line: If you are not a danger to anyone, they will let you escape rather than kill anyone (including you), even if it means you are never brought to justice.
It makes a lot of sense, if you don't have a revenge based justice system.
Do it enough, and ignore the authority of the government to require these things of you, and eventually violence will come of it (forcibly ensure your appearance or imprison you, and that force knows no upper limit if you keep resisting).
