That's what enforcement is, not just some rules in a spreadsheet.
You could setup a similar incentive system as smart contracts. If your tenant does not pay, you could get him evicted much fatser and automatically, because another smart contract can pay the enforcer. And the overall fees are subsidized and tradeable.
Of course we're far away from doing that and both approaches have pros and cons, but it's arguable that the "human-managed" approach is clearly superior.
Yes, the enforcer is not (necessarily) part of the contract. But if the right incentive system is in place and there is consensus that physical enforcement should happen - anyone approved could take that job/risk and be the enforcer.
With such a system you may not even need a physical enforcer since the risk of not getting the tenant out could be tradeable (like an insurance) and the owner would get his rent even if the tenant cannot be evicted immediately. In case of the tenant, there would be huge negative financial incentives to stay.
1. An incentive to evict someone. Money. Someone needs to get paid to actually do the eviction because they are taking on some risk - physical in this case. It doesn't matter how they get paid. A smart contract can do that.
2. "Social/Legal consensus" that performing the physical eviction is the right thing to do. The person performing the eviction should not get punished for it. If the state and breach of contract is transparent on the blockchain this consensus could be achieved.
3. A way to confirm the eviction to pay the evictor.
Also, you are ignoring the fact that, at least where I live, only one entity can legally evict a tenant - the county sheriff (in their role as an agent of the court). You cant just hire some random thugs.
Welcome to mafia shakedowns
> "Social/Legal consensus" that performing the physical eviction is the right thing to do.
That "social/legal consensus" is called laws, and they are enforced through a central authority.
> If the state and breach of contract is transparent on the blockchain
Who exactly is deciding "the state and breach of contract"? You can start from the fact that smart contracts are not even written in a human language.
> A way to confirm the eviction to pay the evictor.
People were paying each other for thousands of years without smart contracts
The same principle applies here as physical eviction is fundamentally about risk. There is an "auction" on the eviction and potential evictors can decide how risky the eviction is. More risky evictions will require a larger payout.
In Italy (and I bet in many other European countries) this is the public force that is in charge of doing this and there are a lots of exceptions (for instance, here, you cannot easily evict a family where there are children or sick people).
And if you involve the pubic force, then you are inherently accepting the concept of a central trusted authority, hence the decentralisation fails as a requirement.