Well, there's presumably something you have to do if an individual 'defector' from society goes around eating other people's food?  Even a tiny fraction of people like that can do a lot of damage, and of course, you'll have even more of them if you don't build any way of stopping them.  There's probably some kind of 'police investigator' whose job it is to hunt down food thieves, and then that person has to eat...

Well, they probably get a small fraction of food from a lot of farms?  And the 'police' don't protect any farms that don't contribute those little bits of food?  And thieves target those farms and only those farms that don't have police investigators.

If you need that mechanism anyways, the 'police' then have to decide what is thievery in the first place, and keep track of where the tags go.  So probably the 'police' would be the main ones where you'd want them to tell you that the contracts 'validate'.  Though, obviously, you'd also want the other people in your society to agree on not coming over and taking your food.  You wouldn't want any contracts which were complicated to the point where other members in society couldn't figure out that they weren't suppose to eat your food.

The notion of a contract breaking is a weird one?  For a contract to 'validate', the police should always be able to figure out what to do in any case of observable terms.  The contract might say that, if somebody doesn't do some deed - or rather, something the police can observe about that, like some contracted observer saying that somebody didn't do a deed - some land or food they own, then belongs to somebody else?  And the person who didn't do the deed, might lose reputation about that?  But contracts shouldn't 'break' so much as describe what happens in unpleasant contingencies as seen from a police perspective.

If the police can't figure out what a contract means - if there's a 'dispute' the contract doesn't imply how to resolve - then they need to do more careful validation next time!  But, sure, you could have some sufficiently respected group of five people whose majority would decide what would happen in the hopefully very rare cases of contracts that validated and shouldn't have.

Well, there's presumably something you have to do if an individual 'defector' from society goes around eating other people's food?  Even a tiny fraction of people like that can do a lot of damage, and of course, you'll have even more of them if you don't build any way of stopping them.  There's probably some kind of 'police investigator' whose job it is to hunt down food thieves, and then that person has to eat...

Well, they probably get a small fraction of food from a lot of farms?  And the 'police' don't protect any farms that don't contribute those little bits of food?  And thieves target those farms and only those farms that don't have police investigators.

If you need that mechanism anyways, the 'police' then have to decide what is thievery in the first place, and keep track of where the tags go.  So probably the 'police' would be the main ones where you'd want them to tell you that the contracts 'validate'.  Though, obviously, you'd also want the other people in your society to agree on not coming over and taking your food.  You wouldn't want any contracts which were complicated to the point where other members in society couldn't figure out that they weren't suppose to eat your food.

The notion of a contract breaking is a weird one?  For a contract to 'validate', the police should always be able to figure out what to do in any case of observable terms.  The contract might say that, if somebody doesn't do some deed - or rather, something the police can observe about that, like some contracted observer saying that somebody didn't do a deed - some land or food they own, then belongs to somebody else?  And the person who didn't do the deed, might lose reputation about that?  But contracts shouldn't 'break' so much as describe what happens in unpleasant contingencies as seen from a police perspective.

If the police can't figure out what a contract means - if there's a 'dispute' the contract doesn't imply how to resolve - then they need to do more careful validation next time!  But, sure, you could have some sufficiently respected group of five people, whose majority would decide what would happen in the hopefully very rare cases of contracts that validated and shouldn't have.

Well, there's presumably something you have to do if an individual 'defector' from society goes around eating other people's food?  Even a tiny fraction of people like that can do a lot of damage, and of course, you'll have even more of them if you don't build any way of stopping them.  There's probably some kind of 'police investigator' whose job it is to hunt down food thieves, and then that person has to eat...

Well, they probably get a small fraction of food from a lot of farms?  And the 'police' don't protect any farms that don't contribute those little bits of food?  And thieves target those farms and only those farms that don't have police investigators.

If you need that mechanism anyways, the 'police' then have to decide what is thievery in the first place, and keep track of where the tags go.  So probably the 'police' would be the main ones where you'd want them to tell you that the contracts 'validate'.  Though, obviously, you'd also want the other people in your society to agree on not coming over and taking your food.  You wouldn't want any contracts which were complicated to the point where other members in society couldn't figure out that they shouldn't eat your food.

The notion of a contract breaking is a weird one?  For a contract to 'validate', the police should always be able to figure out what to do in any case of observable terms.  The contract might say that, if somebody doesn't do some deed - or rather, something the police can observe about that, like some contracted observer saying that somebody didn't do a deed - some land or food they own, then belongs to somebody else?  And the person who didn't do the deed, might lose reputation about that?  But contracts shouldn't 'break' so much as describe what happens in unpleasant contingencies as seen from a police perspective.

If the police can't figure out what a contract means - if there's a 'dispute' the contract doesn't imply how to resolve - then they need to do more careful validation next time!  But, sure, you could have some sufficiently respected group of five people, whose majority would decide what would happen in the hopefully very rare cases of contracts that validated and shouldn't have.