4 ms·

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

wk_end 5y ago
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.
- amscanne 5y ago
  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.
  - wk_end 5y ago
    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.
    - amscanne 5y ago
      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.

4 ms·

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

by amscanne 5y ago

wk_end 5y ago
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.
- amscanne 5y ago
  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.
  - wk_end 5y ago
    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.
    - amscanne 5y ago
      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.