> Its definitional: if you aren't seeking the threat of state enforcement to enforce a set of mutual promises, you don't have a contract, you have a mutual set

> Its definitional: if you aren't seeking the threat of state enforcement to enforce a set of mutual promises, you don't have a contract, you have a mutual set of promises that lacks the intent necessary to form a contract. That is one definition, but not the only. And I'm sure there are creative ways to enforce contracts without State force--third-party arbitration could be an option, social pressure, etc. Most contract disputes I've been involved with have been resolved without the need for legal action. There are plenty of social dynamics that come into play. > Enforcement of existing laws, civil and criminal, is done on a case-by-case basis by actual people; even if something creates a civil or criminal cause of action, the party (the prosecutorial authority of the state, in criminal cases) with the cause of action may choose not exercise it, and jury nullification is thing, so, largely, what you call for is the status quo. This is true, but I don't think it's working. Looking at the current prison population, something is deeply flawed. Are most jurors even aware of jury nullification? > If you think the specific parameters of the existing law are drawn incorrectly, you probably ought to address your specific problem rather than calling for abstract features that already exist in the current system. Fair enough.