One might object that the diversity of remedies available in response to civil liability belies the claim that it can be unified under the rubric of vulnerability. Consider the remedy of specific performance for breach of contract. This seems to be an order requiring that one perform one’s contractual obligations. Likewise, money damages in response for an action on
a liquidated debt also seems to be a species of duty enforcement. Punitive damages might plausibly be seen as a species of personal retribution for egregious conduct, but compensatory damages for economic losses seem rather more like a form of cost shifting or insurance. Replevin seems to be a matter of requiring the return of property to its lawful owner, while money damages for conversion seems to be a species of forced sale. And so on. In all of these cases it would seem that what we are witnessing is not a kind of vulnerability to attack, but rather an effort by the state to coerce some desired
state of affairs into being. In short: enforcement.