Well, okay, but that then negates all contract law and makes discussing it with you sort of pointless.
Discussion
no, law pre-exists government, have a look at the bible, you will see "judges" precedes David
Contracts are an agreement between two parties. A breach of the contract does not necessitate the intervention of violent extortionists. In fact, most contract breaches don’t require the government at all. Most businesses ask their employees to sign arbitration agreements so that an arbitrator can help them resolve their disputes.
The arbitrator only has power to arbitrate because the threat of a messy, expensive court case looms over them.
The arbitrator has power because both parties agreed and assigned power to him. The expensive court case is a disincentive that pushed them to sign an arbitration agreement. You don’t have to agree to that. But it doesn’t give confidence to people that you’re someone that should be worked with.
Bitcoin can make prenups less important. Finding the right partner is the gold standard though. Ultimately I’m not sure why anyone cares what type of contract two people decide to consensually enter.
You still haven't said who enforces the contract if she wins the disagreement. Obviously, he can enforce his own clauses, but what does she do?
If there is no entity backing her side, then they have entered into a contract that only one of them has the power to enforce and that is an invalid contract.
You didn’t ask lol but you gotta stop thinking in terms of force and violence. The arbitrator makes a ruling based on the cases each person provides. If one of the parties disagrees, he or she can ignore the ruling but this looks bad on him or her. This is where the social contract is powerful. Who would marry that person who disregarded the ruling of their own arbitrator? Who would do business with that person? Would you marry someone that cheated in the past? Would you do business with someone accused of theft repeatedly? The solution isn’t going to always get you “justice,” but one individual’s loss in a partnership should not be subsidized by everyone in their community. If your partner turned out to be a scumbag that ripped you off, others shouldn’t be punished for it. The community will hear about these things and their reputation will suffer for it. This is how natural justice deters foul play without requiring violent extortion of other innocent people.
Natural Justice would be him being challenged to a duel by her brother or shot by her father. Patriarchs are the Justice of the Peace, if there are no official paths to enforce her contract.
The idea that a man can just leave her high and dry and walk away is based upon the error that other men have an interest in allowing him to leave, unscathed, leaving them to provide for an abandoned woman and not even giving them the satisfaction of exacting retribution.
Contracts with women are always de facto contracts with other men. Courts are a gentlemens' agreement, so eliminating courts just means men have to get the swords and pistols out, again.
Courts are not a gentlemen’s agreement. I never agreed to be ruled by a court. But yes men may get their swords and pistols and handle their own family disputes. Instead of the current socialist system that makes your loss everyone else’s problem. It’s not my fault Stephanie chose a bad husband. It’s not my fault Joseph’s wife committed adultery.