Again you infer too much from my isolated remark that it be risky.

Please please don't draw conclusions too quickly. I know we extrapolate from any single bit of information to the whole picture. There must be a link here on LW about it. On my side I promise I will not post such isolated statements again.

To get back to your point. We prefer natural consequences too. My wife is better at it then I am. She immediatly has a consequence at hand that mostly does work. But then she has the plan for the day. A long time ago I agreed that we establish the same rules and back each other on decisions made by the other. But often enough I find myself in a situation where I have to back her - but don't know to what end. That places me into a situation where I am bound to fail.

As for the riskyness of the approach. I'd like to just point out the logical consequences: If you establish a rule (e.g. because if all follow the rule that will have positive effects for all) and then do not perform your part in supporting this common cause and instead look away then the same will happen as in any social group where social norms are not followed: the rule will weaken and possibly fall below a level where its usefullness gets negatve. If you want to maintain the rule you should better invest sufficient continuous energy to keep the rule adherence at a level where it is useful instead of letting it slip and then invest significant energy into getting it back.