So because there is dependence on some monopolistic entity for contract disputes (there really shouldn't be), then that gives justification for that entity to intrude on voluntary actions? Seems like a logical fallacy to me. How about we let people transact peacefully and deal with the problems on a case-by-case basis instead of lumping everyone under the same law that allows no room for exploration.

> So because there is dependence on some monopolistic entity for contract disputes (there really shouldn't be)

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.

> then that gives justification for that entity to intrude on voluntary actions?

Yes, using the threat of action by other people to get what you want gives those other people a right to a voice in what you can use that threat to support.

> Seems like a logical fallacy to me.

Subjective appearance can say as much about the one seeing as the thing being seen.

> How about we let people transact peacefully and deal with the problems on a case-by-case basis instead of lumping everyone under the same law that allows no room for exploration.

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.

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.

> 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.

I'll add: third-party arbitration is already quite common, and in many cases is very deliberately used to avoid the government alternative. The definition proposed by that commenter indicates to me that he or she is simply unaware of the existence and commonness of arbitration.

Anywhere outside Hackernews, mandatory arbitration is considered a way to prevent trial by jury. It's safe to say that "trial by jury" got written into the constitution is because the drafters had experience with arbitration and were aware that at times it can be seriously unfair and inequitable to one of the parties.

What do you think a representational government is except the exertion of social pressure backed by force?

One key difference is that the representational government's monopoly is backed by force.

By monopolistic entity, do you mean society? If you don't want to live by the rules of the society you are in, you are free to withdraw yourself and find somewhere else without such onerous restrictions. Likely you'll find it much worse place to live.

I don't mean society. I mean a very small portion of society called "government."