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.

1. debtor's prison isn't a thing anymore

2. look up "judgement-proof"

Contracts are entered into voluntarily. Mandates are forcefully imposed by a majority onto a minority.

No one says that the barrel isn't necessary. Just that it's there and we should be judicious about when we want to apply it.

No they aren’t. You must go to the government via the legal system, since they are the only one authorized to use force.

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.