[Nextgrid]

Keep in mind that I have never advocated for violence being the primary arbiter of disagreements. In fact, resorting to violence pretty much always turns out poorly for the attacker and is thus not a winning strategy - it is usually done out of desperation more than anything else.

The possibility of someone reacting unreasonably however keeps everyone more honest and assigns an actual cost to pushing people to a situation where they will resort to violence out of desperation.

[bumby]

That possibility exists regardless; someone can always create a "Falling Down" scenario when they're fed up. But I don't see any real advantage to a civilized society in increasing the possibility of the equivalent of vigilante justice.

[Nextgrid]

I'm not talking about some kind of organized, premeditated, high-cost vigilante operation like making people fall out of windows (I'm assuming that's what you meant by "falling down" scenario?).

I'm talking about the repo goon having to risk that the car leasee he's repossessing from being at their breaking point (because that car is the only way they can keep their job and avoid losing everything) and/or mentally unstable and pulling out a gun or a crowbar and thus pricing this risk into their services (or outright declining the job if it feels too sketchy) which ultimately trickles back up to the lender and encourage them to let go or be more lenient with this particular case (something they'd have no reason to do if they could turn the car off remotely).

[bumby]

“Falling Down” was a reference to the movie by the same name.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect a threat of violence from the enforcement of a contract. There’s a reason why we tend to give the monopoly of (non-self-defense) violence to the government.