AFAIK, there’s nothing stopping you from negotiating a loan with terms that allow you to legally default under X conditions. What’s unclear to me is why you want to stop me from securing a loan with more stringent default requirements. If you’re going to make this sort of argument, you need to explain what justifies destroying the surplus created by my bank transactions.

If I buy shares in a company and the company goes bust, I’m out the money. Nobody’s going to cry over my shoulder or demand my money back. It’s understood that I gambled and lost. Whereas, if a credit card company takes stupid risks with its money, it’s understood that the state will force ordinary Americans to pay for the rest of their lives and call it “personal responsibility.”

In countries like Canada and Japan, credit is relatively expensive, and credit default rates are very low. That’s partly because there are reasonable bankruptcy laws that will cause a credit card company lose a little money if someone gets in so far over their head that they declare bankruptcy. It’s not like Canadian credit companies are going belly-up. Far from it. High interest rates and low default rates still equal handsome profits, perhaps especially because bankruptcy laws give rational actors the incentive not to lend individuals more than they can realistically pay back.