Also a point on contract enforcement: the ones responsible for properly upholding their own ends of the contract are the parties involved. Any party who doesn't uphold their side of the contract is in fact actively committing a crime, which the government already has agreed to shield you from as a condition of citizenship. This is why the government steps in when there are contract disputes, and considering this as a business owner relying on the government to perform some element of the owner's "work" is fairly inaccurate in that the party who is actually forcing the government to raise their hand is the side that isn't upholding their end of the contract.Imagine this: if an employer wasn't paying his employee on time and the government had to come in and shake the employer down for the employee's paycheque, would you be pinning the cause of this intervention on the employer or the employee? Obviously the employer. The situation that Ben and I are talking about is the exact inverse.