It’s good taxing the indolent habit of cigarette smoking, a major strain on the public health system.
Smokers should be forced to take out private health insurance, with exclusion from the public health system as an end result.

Dave needs to oil the wheel of his pro-tobacco cart, the wheel is squeaking in this article.

David,

There’s a certain irony to railing against people who think they know what’s best for others, while confidently prescribing what society shouldn’t do, based on your own beliefs. It’s just a different flavour of superiority.

Yes, illusory superiority is real, and often funny, but turning that psychological quirk into a blanket attack on public health policy is a classic bait-and-switch. You start with science, then pivot into libertarian dogma, as if one justifies the other. It doesn’t.

The biggest flaw is your suggestion that public health measures stem from intellectual arrogance rather than evidence or concern for public wellbeing. That’s a straw man. Helmet laws, smoking restrictions, and dietary guidelines weren’t invented by smug academics trying to flex their degrees, they were responses to demonstrable harms, often backed by extensive research, cost-benefit analysis, and (ironically) humility about what happens when we ignore data.

Then there’s the selective caricaturing. Academics = arrogant busybodies; tradespeople = humble, wise realists. It’s a tidy narrative that flatters your worldview, but it’s also a lazy stereotype. Plenty of academics are cautious, evidence-driven, and public-minded. Plenty of tradies are outspoken, confident, and, yes, sometimes wrong. Likewise, there are all too many tradies who are anything but humble - let alone wise or realistic. Intelligence and humility aren’t exclusive to one class of worker.

Worst of all, you conflate “being told” with “being controlled.” No one likes overreach. But you blur the line between informed policy and authoritarianism, as though every regulation is an act of moral vanity rather than a response to measurable risk. That’s just reflexive anti-government sentiment dressed in pop psychology.

The problem isn’t that some people overestimate their intelligence. The problem is pretending that expertise and concern are the same thing as elitism. And that’s its own kind of delusion.

WTF?

Linking superiority to the "nanny state" seems to be a recurring theme with David Leyonhjelm.

It's not the first time that he has tried to link the wearing of bicycle helmets and smoking regulations to some type of imagined moral panic by those with "superior guidance".

All this from someone who has said in the past: that teenage vaping is "a proven safe alternative to cigarette smoking."

The last time this author tried to bundle the "nanny state", perceived superior intelligence, smoking, bike helmets and other behaviours into an article he synthesised into the following:
" It can reach peak absurdity when a homeless, penniless, destitute person is still considered unworthy because they are white, male, heterosexual, or enjoy any of the other imagined sources of advantage. It takes a rare kind of superior intelligence to come to that conclusion."

My thoughts at the time were: "It takes a rare kind of intelligence to come up with this statement and not expect people to see it for what it is - a constructed nonsense."

It's time to move on David. I don't think you convinced anyone last time and I don't think you've convinced anyone this time.

Reworking the same articles for the same audience serves no purpose

What passes for "education" these days has nothing to do with intelligence.

“It is simply not possible for more than half a population to be above average”. That is borne out, not by the ‘average’, but by the majority in Australia, who re-elected the worst government ever.

That has left Australia with a PM, who has the intelligence of a door knob, telling us that Welcome to Country is not controversial.

Anyone who seen this blokes performance in Parliament, yes he was an Australian Senator until being booted in 2019, known what he's like. He has been a member of about 6 political parties, including Labor and Liberal. Leyonhjelm believes that every Australian (including children) should be armed with guns, that speaks volumes for his mentality.

Why are those knuckle draggers on the extreme right, so jealous of intelligence, is it because they have none, but wish they did? i suspect it's because intelligent people see them for what they are, numbskulls!

Ordering people how to live is morally repugnant because it is a form of violence, not because it is "unintelligent".

The people who order others around could well be very smart and well versed in the health and safety of the body, but "smart" is almost an antonym to "wise" and the body is only a clothing for the spirit.

I do however agree with Diver Dan that the public need not finance the poor choices of individuals.

Superiority delusion is a merit-devoid symptom that caused the rise of Academia & Intellectualism of the Left, hence their own self-promotion term "Woke" !
The Conservative "Right" is, or rather was until recently much more merit (example & evidence) based !

"It’s good taxing the indolent habit of cigarette smoking, a major strain on the public health system."

Smokers voluntarily lay down their lives for their country....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1DviQ9mva0

Nobody is forced to smoke. Smoking is a free choice and in a free country, free choice should be protected.

By all means, use the resources of the government to inform people of the dangers they face when they smoke. But that's it. After that its the smokers choice. If they choose to ignore the information, that's their democratic free choice.

But the problem is we have a class of people who think that anyone who makes a choice different to them, is demonstrably wrong and needs to be forced into making the 'correct' choice.

NB- I don't smoke

We saw the same things with the covid hysteria and the vaccine jihads.

We see it with vaping bans based not on facts but on preferences of the credentialed classes.

OF coarse, in the end the government can't ban smoking as an example. The current illegal tobacco wars proves that. The US experience with Prohibition of alcohol likewise proved it but the do-gooder class rarely learns from the past, despite their claims of superior knowledge.

mhaze,

Nobody’s denying that people have the right to make bad choices. The issue is who bears the cost when those choices lead to predictable harm, especially when it’s not just the smoker who suffers, but also the public health system and those around them.

Yes, we inform people. But if it stops there, we’re left footing the bill when they ignore that information. Taxing tobacco or regulating vaping isn’t about forcing people to live correctly, it’s about recognising shared consequences in a shared society.

Framing every public health measure as an assault on liberty is simplistic and dishonest. We already limit choice in all sorts of ways: seatbelts, speed limits, food safety standards. Not because we hate freedom, but because risk doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

Also worth noting: railing against “the credentialed classes” while citing democratic values is an odd pairing. Democracy doesn’t mean ignoring expertise. It means weighing it transparently, with accountability. The alternative isn’t liberty. It’s chaos under the guise of principle.

And yes, some have proposed banning smoking outright, or phasing it out over time. But that’s not the substance of most public health policy. Tobacco taxes, plain packaging, and advertising restrictions aren’t prohibition, they’re harm-reduction measures. Comparing them to the chaos of 1920s Prohibition ignores both the scale and intent:

One was a moral panic; the other is a slow, evidence-based attempt to reduce avoidable deaths and costs.

If anything, it’s the do-nothing approach that refuses to learn from history. There’s a big difference between nannying and managing the consequences of risk.

Its the crux of most of these societal issues. Some people think the world would be better if everyone thought like them, and they intend to enforce that. Others think the world would be better if everyone just let everyone else get on with the life they want.

The link I gave for 'Yes Minister' was comedy but the numbers do indeed stake up. Smokers put more into the health system than they take out. But if we are going to force everyone to pay a premium for life style choices that cost the medical system money then where to stop? Obesity costs for the health system are enormous. Perhaps a tax on plus sized clothing? The possibilities are endless.

"railing against “the credentialed classes” while citing democratic values is an odd pairing. Democracy doesn’t mean ignoring expertise."

Credentialled doesn't equal expert

Dear John,

If it was up to me and my personal benefit, then I would utilise every possible moral loophole to justify banning smoking/vaping.

But honestly, I cannot find any such loophole.

The key is your own phrase: "it’s about recognising shared consequences in a shared society."

Had everyone actually agreed on a shared society, then yes, then we could legitimately tell others, "you wanted to be in this society, then you must follow its rules". Fortunately or unfortunately, that's not the case as none of us was asked to freely consent or otherwise to belonging in any big society (such as the one calling itself after this continent, "Australia").

Still, even when one hasn't agreed to have anything to do with you and your society(s), there remains one legitimate recourse to coercion, which is self-defence. Self-defence isn't ideal - a saint would turn his/her other cheek instead, but as we are not yet saints, this is acceptable, mediocre but acceptable.

Yet in the absence of consensual society, anything beyond strict self-defence is unacceptable violence.

You mentioned in one breath three very different issues:
"seatbelts, speed limits, food safety standards".

Speed limits on public roads is clearly a matter of self-defence:
The roads presumably belong to the public (that's a bit vague and questionable, but anyway let's assume that to be the case) and as the public may be present on the roads at any moment, it's OK for them to take such measures in self-defence. Note that there are no speed limits on private roads!

Food-safety standards are similarly acceptable in truly-public places, such as restaurants where the general public is invited and may wish to protect itself from poisoning. However, their imposition is not legitimate within groups of people who never freely consented to belong to the society that imposes these standards.

Finally, enforcing seatbelts in private transport is abusive because not wearing them poses no public threat.
It's perfectly legitimate, however, to tell people: "No seatbelt: if you are injured in an accident, then you pay your own medical bills (or otherwise not admitted to hospital)".

That's a tidy story, mhaze.

//It's the crux of most of these societal issues. Some people think the world would be better if everyone thought like them, and they intend to enforce that. Others think the world would be better if everyone just let everyone else get on with the life they want.//

But it only works if you ignore shared costs, public infrastructure, and basic harm management. Nobody’s trying to “enforce” a worldview, they’re trying to avoid footing the bill for the consequences of choices that come with measurable risk.

That’s not tyranny. It’s sensible policy.

//The link I gave for 'Yes Minister' was comedy but the numbers do indeed stack up. Smokers put more into the health system than they take out.//

Only if you count dying younger as a fiscal asset. That argument boils down to: “Don’t worry, they’re profitable because they don’t live long enough to claim a pension.” If that’s your version of good governance, it’s hard to imagine a more dystopian benchmark.

//But if we are going to force everyone to pay a premium for lifestyle choices that cost the medical system money then where to stop? Obesity costs for the health system are enormous. Perhaps a tax on plus-sized clothing? The possibilities are endless.//

Ah yes, the slippery slope fallacy - where every reasonable measure is just one step away from the absurd.

We already make distinctions: we tax cigarettes and alcohol because the harms are clear, compounding, and well-studied. That doesn’t mean we tax every imperfect choice. That’s what policymaking is: weighing risk, cost, and evidence, and deciding where regulation is justified.

//Credentialled doesn't equal expert.//

Agreed, but you used “credentialed” as a slur, while offering no alternative standard for expertise beyond personal preference or political instinct. If someone spends their career studying public health and publishes peer-reviewed research, that carries more weight than someone armed with a hunch and a YouTube link.

Credentialed isn’t always expert, but anti-intellectual isn’t the answer either.

I give up.

Zero new illegals released into the US and JD claims that doesn't matter because a few thousand were caught and NOT released. BTW the sky isn't blue because there's that small fluffy white cloud over there!

USAID has been closed down but JD claims otherwise because some of its functions have been continued at State. BTW the White Australia Policy continues because we still have an immigration system.

Struth!

The gymnastics some will go through to deny the massive successes of the first 6 months of Trump's term are impressive not to mention comedic.

Wrong thread, mhaze,

It's understandable, though. When you’re juggling this many debates and watching them all unravel at once, it’s easy for the replies to blur together.

I'll reply to your rage-quit in the correct thread.
_____

Let’s follow your principle through, Yuyutsu.

If someone doesn’t wear a seatbelt, you say they should be denied treatment or pay their own bills. Does that also apply to smokers with lung cancer? Drinkers with liver failure? People with diabetes linked to diet?

If you’re consistent, then a huge chunk of the population would be left to suffer in agony. But think about what that means for nurses and doctors:

They’d be "coerced" into refusing care to people they desperately want to help, forced to suppress basic human compassion just to keep the system consistent. That’s not “non-violence.” That’s moral violence against caregivers.

If you wouldn’t actually go that far - and I doubt you would - then you’ve already accepted that society must step in and manage risk collectively. The only real question is how.

Dear John,

All I said was that it is LEGITIMATE to deny free medical aid from those who take unnecessary risks to their life and health.

I did not say that you must necessarily always deny it, and I certainly did not say, nor ever agree, that you should forbid others to compassionately provide that aid.

And why indeed not ask those who take unnecessary risks to pay for their treatment when they have the means?

Yuyutsu,

That’s interesting, because what you’ve just described is close to how things already work.

People who take bigger risks (like smokers or heavy drinkers) already pay more in taxes, insurance, and surcharges. Others are free to offer voluntary aid. And we certainly don’t make nurses stand by while people die to teach them a lesson.

This isn't perfect, but it’s why public health policies exist: to balance compassion with responsibility before it gets to the point of denying treatment.

I’m glad to hear you now saying that denying treatment isn’t mandatory and that compassion shouldn’t be forbidden. Previously, you described seatbelt enforcement as “abusive” and public health mandates as “unacceptable violence,” which strongly implied the opposite - that refusing treatment was the only morally consistent option.

Would you agree that what you’re describing now sounds much closer to the humane system we already have?

Dear John,

There are two quite different questions and standards involved:

1) what is humane?
2) what is morally acceptable?

You seem to be concerned with the former while I am concerned with the latter.

I do however, lean in the direction of being more humane whenever it is morally acceptable to do so.

What to do, I may or may not enjoy living in a humane society - that would be a personal preference, but to the extent that my humanism necessitates actively hurting others, then it is a big no-no: PRIMUM NON NOCERE.

So threatening someone with an active punishment if they choose not to wear a seatbelt (presently if they do so repeatedly and continue to drive then they could be locked up in jail), is violent.

As I wrote earlier, such violence MAY be excused on grounds of self-defence, but this is not the case here (whereas it could for example be excused in the case of speeding on a public road, or with exposing non-consenting others to passive smoking).

Charging a higher insurance premium, OTOH, seems perfect in this case.

And taxing excessive risks-takers more (since you mentioned it), well that goes into the big grey area of taxation, which we could go into some other day.

Sorry for being brief, that is all the time I have today, but I will be happy to expand on it some other day.

Yuyutsu,

I’m trying to picture what you mean by something being less humane but more morally acceptable.

From what you’ve said, perhaps you mean something like jail time for repeat seatbelt offenders? If so, that seems like a poor example because jail is both less humane and more coercive than a fine, tax, or premium adjustment.

Could you give a concrete example? Because in every case I think of - seatbelts, medical aid, smoking risks, etc. - the less humane option (withholding help or letting harm occur) seems morally worse, not better.

I’m open to being shown otherwise, but right now it feels like moral acceptability and humaneness naturally point in the same direction.

No rush. Whenever you've got the time.

Dear John,

«From what you’ve said, perhaps you mean something like jail time for repeat seatbelt offenders?»

That was an example of IMMORALITY.
Jailing people for not wearing a seatbelt is both immoral and inhumane.

«I’m open to being shown otherwise, but right now it feels like moral acceptability and humaneness naturally point in the same direction.»

Moral acceptability and humaneness often point in the same direction - but not always.

A good example for the difference between humaneness and morality is the Trolley Problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

In the most basic form of that dilemma, a humane person would flip the switch, thus diverting the trolley and killing just one instead of five people, while a moral person would not touch the switch.

One way to point at the difference, is that morality focuses on the righteousness of actions
(which actions are within one's duty to perform and which actions are within one's duty to avoid),
while humaneness focuses on the likely results of the actions and whether they be favourable to humankind or otherwise.

Yuyutsu,

I’m glad we agree moral acceptability and humaneness usually align.

The trolley problem is interesting, but ethicists haven’t settled on inaction being “more moral,” and public policy rarely resembles that scenario.

Choosing not to regulate risk isn’t neutral. It predictably causes harm.

That’s why measures like seatbelt laws and smoking taxes end up both humane and morally justified: they prevent suffering without forcing anyone into trolley-style choices.

Dear John,

No wonder ethicists have not settled their views - some are primarily moralists while others are primarily result-oriented pragmatist humanists.

«public policy rarely resembles that scenario»

Well of course, I just wanted to provide a pure and sharp example: real-life situations are usually more blurred, but the question is still along the lines of making some people suffer for the perceived benefit of others in the name of "the greater good".

Humanists have a goal (unachievable in my view) of reducing the sum of overall suffering, regardless of its causes.
Moralists consider the source of suffering important, saying, "come what may, I will not allow my actions to become the cause of new suffering to others".

«Choosing not to regulate risk isn’t neutral. It predictably causes harm.»

That harm comes from cars and trucks in motion, not from under-regulation.

Even if regulation could prevent a harm (not that it really does), it is not its cause when it doesn't. From a metaphysical point of view, the real cause of any harm are the previous actions of the "victim", whether they still consciously remember these actions or otherwise, thus even if regulation prevents a specific accident from happening, some different accident would happen to replace it (and not necessarily a road accident).

Yet besides the original harms it seeks to reduce, enforceable regulation creates a new and different harm, that of causing people to live in fear of the police and robbing away their sense of agency and responsibility (including their pride and satisfaction in choosing to wear their seatbelts voluntarily). People who feel humiliated and helpless by the law could instead express their frustration at others: possibly at other drivers, cyclists or pedestrians, or it could be at domestic partners, children, co-workers, etc. Government could count and be proud of the number of directly reduced road-fatalities and injuries, while not taking into account the indirect consequences.

The end result of causing harm, even if it's a naive well-meaning harm, cannot be good. Anything short of self-defence is inexcusable, and even self-defence cannot really prevent harm, only postpone it.

Yuyutsu,

I see where you’re coming from, but this feels like it’s drifting pretty far from practical ethics.

Earlier, you agreed that moral acceptability and humaneness usually line up, and you even said you’re fine with higher premiums or taxing risk-takers – which are both forms of regulation. Now you’re saying “anything short of self-defence is inexcusable,” which sounds like a complete rejection of collective risk management. That’s a big shift.

The idea that accidents are inevitable and regulation just “shifts harm elsewhere” doesn’t fit with what we actually see. Seatbelt laws, smoking restrictions, and other safety rules have saved thousands of lives without creating equal or greater harm somewhere else.

Metaphysically, you might believe every injury is fated, but policymaking can’t operate on cosmic determinism. It has to deal with observable outcomes – and those outcomes show proportionate regulation prevents suffering without producing the indirect harms you’ve described.

Would you agree that ethics guiding public policy needs to be grounded in real-world evidence, not just metaphysical theory?

Dear John,

«Earlier, you agreed that moral acceptability and humaneness usually line up»

They do, but what has coercion to do with either?

If you can come up with humane policies which do not involve coercion (or other forms of violence), then I'll support them.

«and you even said you’re fine with higher premiums or taxing risk-takers»

I'm more than fine with higher premiums (as insurance is not compulsory), but as for tax, I said it is a vast grey area, which we haven't yet started discussing.

«Now you’re saying “anything short of self-defence is inexcusable,»

Nothing short of self-defence can excuse coercion.

«The idea that accidents are inevitable and regulation just “shifts harm elsewhere” doesn’t fit with what we actually see.»

Perfect observation: we cannot see this.
This phenomenon is called "Adrishta": "unseen"/"invisible".
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pGzwRZHdQY

«Seatbelt laws, smoking restrictions, and other safety rules have saved thousands of lives without creating equal or greater harm somewhere else.»

The effects of the laws in themselves are indeed positive.
But there're also the effects of the enforcement regime of these laws, which are negative.

«Metaphysically, you might believe every injury is fated»

More precisely, some injury or suffering of similar nature and magnitude is inevitable, not this or that particular injury.

«but policymaking can’t operate on cosmic determinism. It has to deal with observable outcomes»

Well it could also include the observations of the ancient sages, made with their "spiritual eyes" rather than with their physical eyes, even if this rarely occurs in our day and age.

«and those outcomes show proportionate regulation prevents suffering without producing the indirect harms you’ve described.»

Well, I can recount exactly how I personally suffered indirectly as a result of a similar law (and if need be, I'll spend another 350-word block to do so).

«Would you agree that ethics guiding public policy needs to be grounded in real-world evidence, not just metaphysical theory?»

Metaphysics point at aspects of reality no less real than what our normal five senses can perceive. Would you like it if policies relied, for example, only on the sense of smell?

Yuyutsu,

Coercion is central because most public policy involves rules are backed by enforcement.

//They do, but what has coercion to do with either//

Even voluntary contracts and insurance rely on courts and regulations to work. If all coercion is immoral, almost every shared safety measure becomes impossible.

//I’m more than fine with higher premiums… but as for tax, I said it is a vast grey area…//

Premiums only function because of regulated standards and enforcement. If coercion is inherently wrong, then insurance contracts and legal remedies for fraud would also be immoral. Do you reject those as well?

//Nothing short of self-defence can excuse coercion.//

But risk management is a form of collective self-defence. Seatbelt laws, road rules, and smoking restrictions reduce predictable harm before it strikes. Waiting until after the injury to act isn’t more moral, it’s just too late.

//Perfect observation: we cannot see this… Adrishta… ‘unseen’…//

If harm is truly invisible, how can anyone know it exists or legislate around it? Public policy has to weigh visible, demonstrable outcomes - and those show safety laws save lives.

//The effects of the laws in themselves are positive… but enforcement has negative effects.//

Negative effects aren’t invisible - we can measure public trust, crime, fear of police, etc. The evidence overwhelmingly shows net safety gains without widespread social harm. If the positives vastly outweigh the negatives, is that still immoral?

//Some injury or suffering… is inevitable, not this or that particular injury.//

That’s cosmic fatalism, not practical ethics. By that logic, there’s no point treating disease or rescuing someone in danger because “another harm will replace it.” Clearly, we don’t live that way in practice.

//Policies could include observations of sages… spiritual eyes…//

Public safety decisions can’t be based on unverified mystical insight any more than on smell alone. Policy needs evidence everyone can access and evaluate.

If rejecting coercion means rejecting nearly every practical safety measure, including the enforcement behind insurance and contracts, how could a society based on that principle realistically function?

Hi John and Yuyutsu,

The idea that human beings can exist in some Utopian world of individual free sprits is nonsense, and its not desirable, we are a tribal animal, and for good reason. Mankind has only developed to todays level of "sophistication" due to the collectiveness and interaction within the tribe, and through external interaction with other tribes. A study of the most primitive of humans, pre colonised Australian Aboriginals, shows that they had developed a structured tribal existence, no different in basics than the "modern" tribalism humans have today. Like us, primitive societies had a system of order with leadership, laws, law enforcement, social justice, accepted norms, collective beliefs etc. Its not going to change, as that's how we are.

Paul,

That’s an excellent point. Even the earliest human societies had rules, leadership, and enforcement, because collective safety and cooperation aren’t optional.

That’s really the crux here: some form of shared, enforced risk management seems to be part of being human. The question isn’t whether we have it, but how to make it proportionate and humane.

Dear Paul,

The "we" you refer to in «we are a tribal animal», are our bodies, not ourselves.
Our body is indeed an animal, whereas we, who for a while dwell in that animal body, are not.

Now when you say that something is "not desirable", the question immediately arises: not desirable for whom?
Not desirable for our human bodies? Not desirable for Mankind? Not desirable for Mankind's level of sophistication?

Then what? Why should you and I care about the above?
If not for the spirit which dwells within human bodies, yes, that "individual free spirit" that you just mentioned, why even care about the continuation of human bodies and the human species, what more, a species that in its sophistication causes so many other species to become extinct!?

Next you spoke about law and discipline in primitive tribalism:

Let me tell you, primitive tribes had one wonderful quality:

If you became unhappy with tribal life, if restrictions ever became too severe and unacceptable, then you could simply walk away to the next valley, then either live there alone or form a new tribe with lighter restrictions.

In practice, however, that would rarely occur, because if one was valued by their tribe for their good works and contributions, known to all due to the small size of the tribe, then the elders or leaders would listen to their individual concerns and adjust the rules accordingly, rather than lose that person.

Further, since people could easily migrate, the different tribes competed for good people by considering any imposition of limitations on freedom extremely carefully.

Anyway, could I please ask you to postpone this discussion on primitive societies and human development to a later date, because I only have that much time and space here for my important discussion with John Daysh?

---

And Dear John,

I will get back to our original discussion soon.

Just relating to your reply to Paul1405, I note that your concern was, "how to make it proportionate and humane."
Whereas my primary concern is, how to make it morally acceptable.

if restrictions ever became too severe and unacceptable, then you could simply walk away to the next valley,
Yuyutsu,
And, if they don't want you ? Do you just keep walking & live off charity ?
You need the get onto a different horse, a less philosophical & more realistic with daily life one !
What line of work are you in that can afford to pay you ?

Dear John,

I presume you have been to a yoga session (or under any other name) where they ask you to lie flat on the ground and concentrate on one limb after another, then let go and relax it.

When you let go, a part of your body may sag one or two millimetres, that's all, you will not fall, the floor (or mat) holds your weight anyway, yet people keep their muscles unnecessarily tense even while lying down, as if they need to balance and would fall off a cliff if they let go, and as a result they don't sleep well, blood circulation is constricted and they wake up tense and tired in the morning.

Similarly, if you let go of coercion, there could be a little sag, undeniably, but it would not be as large as you fear. For a while you may experience the adverse effect of some of your inconsiderate past actions coming back to you, but it will abate and soon you will find yourself in a much happier relaxed state.

The price of trying to duplicate a perfect support-system which is already in place, is simply too high.

Most people adhere to their contracts even without fear of the police, just because they are decent, honourable and caring human beings. There are also thieving crooks around, but most people fail to realise that when cheated, it is only because in the past they have been cheating others in similar ways. I am very seldom being cheated today, though it occurred more in my past. When I am, instead of getting angry, I try to look into my past and ask "when have I done something similar myself?", then occasionally I found an answer and that was so enormously satisfying! Then I sing and thank God again and again for His mercy in giving me back my dues for my erstwhile stupidity. Even when painful, I thank God anyway, even if I fail to find the exact source of my mishap.

[continued...]

[...continued]

"But we are humans", you may say, "we cannot trust God enough with our security, we don't have sufficient faith for it".

- Fair enough then, you can only do as much as you can, just do your best.

"But where do you draw the line?", you ask.

Well, I draw it at self-defence.

"But isn't self-defence open to interpretations?"

Yes it is, just be honest.

On one extreme, someone like Stalin could be correct in believing that he needed to kill everyone around him in self-defence, for otherwise they will rebel and poison his food or something.

On the other extreme, a saint is fully aware that his/her body is only a costume they are wearing, and therefore even if that body is murdered, nothing can happen to themselves, thus where comes the need for self-defence?

Between those two extremes, where on this spectrum would you like to place yourself?

Yet specifically, I do believe there's a consensus that forcing seatbelts, unlike some other road rules, isn't a matter of self-defence. It would take quite a convoluted caricature of an argument to portray forcing others to wear seatbelts as a case of self-defence.

And to "protect yourself" from having to pay a fool's hospital fees, you don't need coercion: simply don't pay them!

Regarding fatalism:
Fatalism is when something has to happen because the gods fancy it, and man has no say in the matter. That sounds like Greek mythology.

But when something happens as a result of man's actions, why should it be considered natural just because we see and understand the connection and fatalistic otherwise? Why is karma considered differently to the law of gravity? It is not blindly decreed by others, but only due to our own choices.

how could a society based on that principle [of karma] realistically function?

Some past Eastern societies have been functioning largely based on this principle.
Education is paramount: the more people understand the reality of this principle, the easier it becomes, because this principle is as real as gravity.

- Till then, just do your best!

Yuyutsu,

You may see cosmic justice and karma as the ultimate safeguard, but public policy has to work for everyone. Including those who don’t share that spiritual understanding or faith.

//Most people adhere to their contracts even without fear of the police…//

That may be true for the majority, but rules and enforcement aren’t there for the 95% who already act honorably, they exist for the small fraction who don’t. Most people also drive safely, yet traffic laws and courts exist to handle the exceptions that endanger everyone else.

//To protect yourself from having to pay a fool’s hospital fees, you don't need coercion: simply don't pay them!//

In practice, emergency medicine doesn’t work like that. Hospitals can’t and won’t refuse roadside trauma care, nor can they bill every patient for the full cost. Shared healthcare systems pool risk to make treatment accessible, which means reckless behavior without basic safety rules drives up costs for everyone.

//…forcing seatbelts… isn’t a matter of self-defence. It would take quite a convoluted caricature… to portray it that way.//

But skipping a seatbelt doesn’t just affect the individual, it has ripple effects: emergency responders, hospitals, and taxpayers all bear the costs of preventable injuries. Proportionate rules like seatbelt laws are society’s way of defending itself against those broader harms.

//Some past Eastern societies have been functioning largely based on [karma]…//

Yes, "largely" being the operative word.

Their values were shaped by Karma, but even they had rulers, courts, and laws backed by enforcement. Regardless of spiritual beliefs, human communities have always had, and needed, tangible systems of accountability.

Even if karma is as real as gravity, public policy can’t rely on unseen cosmic corrections.

Dear John,

«You may see cosmic justice and karma as the ultimate safeguard, but public policy has to work for everyone.»

The law of karma, just like the law of gravity, does already work for everyone.
Both laws operate flawlessly without distinguishing between believers and non-believers, the informed and the uninformed, the faithful and the faithless.

Governments don't supply the population with rubber bands to try and duplicate the effects of gravity, just because some might not believe in or know about gravity - yet they do just that regarding the law of karma.

---

My mention of decent, honourable and caring human-beings was in the context of adherence to contracts, not seat-belts. There is nothing dishonourable about not wearing a seatbelt: foolish perhaps, but not dishonourable. This along your bundling of seatbelts which have nothing to do with self-defence, with other road-rules that have everything to do with self-defence, indicate an attempt to evade and brush off an inconvenient truth about an unnecessary use of violence.

Still on seatbelts, you then defend coercion on the grounds of it being the most convenient method, not requiring you to modify any present bureaucratic procedures. That's not even humanism superseding morality, just laziness.

You know what: if it's bureaucratically too difficult for you to charge non-seatbelt-wearers for their treatment and you rather pay for them yourself, then you aren't obliged to charge them, it was only my nice suggestion, which you may leave or take, or even take only when convenient.

---

Eastern societies and karma:
I didn't claim them to be perfect, but at least they got one thing right.

---

«policy can’t rely on unseen cosmic corrections.»

It can, only the present policy-makers don't like the idea, and they don't mind violence either, not even when self-defence isn't an issue.

The population therefore loses and has to suffer an unnecessarily stressful life.

Yuyutsu,

Two of the aims of the corrections arm of justice systems are deterrence and retribution. To work, these need to be seen to be done.

//The law of karma, just like the law of gravity, does already work for everyone.//

If karma truly operated like gravity, then its effects would be seen to be done - but they’re not, and your need to defend it is evidence of this. Again, even in societies steeped in karmic philosophy, there were courts, rulers, and enforcement.

You haven’t addressed why these would exist if invisible justice was enough to govern a functioning society.

//There is nothing dishonourable about not wearing a seatbelt… you bundle seatbelts with road rules that involve self-defence… unnecessary use of violence.//

The risk from skipping a seatbelt doesn’t end with the person making that choice - it spills over into shared medical costs and emergency resources. That’s why proportional enforcement exists: not from laziness or tyranny, but because individual harm creates collective burdens that can’t be ignored.

You haven't explained how your system would handle these costs in reality.

//Policy can rely on unseen cosmic corrections… policymakers don’t like the idea and don’t mind violence.//

This shifts the discussion from practical governance to unseen forces. But public policy has to manage risks that can be observed and acted upon. Again, karmic societies themselves still relied on tangible laws and enforcement because cosmic corrections weren’t enough to keep people safe or systems fair.

That’s the central issue here: when governance explanations retreat into invisible forces, they stop addressing how real societies actually function day-to-day, and you’ve left those practical points unanswered.

Dear John,

Surely you don't expect me to supply all the practical details within this small space, such as the exact wordings of the form sent to people, saying: "Listen mate, the injury you sustained in the accident dated ___ was extensively aggravated by your not wearing a seatbelt and therefore you should pay the following hospital bill...", nor who can sign it. Bureaucrats are being paid for such tasks.

Also why exactly past Eastern societies were less than perfect, which could be a attributed to a variable combination of many factors, including (but not limited to):
* only limited faith.
* ruler's passion for power.
* impatience, wanting to see immediate results.
* populism.
* corruption.
* political opposition.

You keep referring to the consideration of karma, or divine justice, as "impractical" - but only because you do not presently practice it, then you do not practice it because it is "impractical", a perfect circular excuse. Divine justice works, and while [for good reasons] it may not always be as instant, it is absolutely accurate, something human justice cannot claim. No one has ever been "punished" by God for a crime they did not do, or for an act that should not have been considered a crime, nor does anyone end up "unpunished" for a crime they committed, not even if that crime was somehow omitted and not listed in formal legislation.

individual harm does not create a collective burden unless some contract exists whereby the "collective" is expected to pick up fallen individuals. You are under no obligation otherwise, nor would the individual in question likely even want you to pick them up.

«Two of the aims of the corrections arm of justice systems are deterrence and retribution.»

As it stands, yes, where deterrence is understandable but mediocre and born of the lack of faith, while the concept of retribution is plainly a sickening primitive medieval residue.

As to «how real societies actually function day-to-day» [as if there are also unreal societies...], I already responded: DO WHAT YOU CAN, consider everything (including divine justice), then DO YOUR BEST!

I’m not asking for forms, Yuyutsu.

//Surely you don't expect me to supply all the practical details…//

I’m not asking for paperwork, just acknowledging that your idea still depends on human enforcement and decision-making. That alone shows cosmic justice isn’t enough to handle governance in practice.

//Past Eastern societies were less than perfect due to limited faith, rulers’ passion for power…//

Even in societies where karmic philosophy was strongest, governance and earthly justice systems weren’t weaker - they were often just as structured, with laws, courts, and enforcement. There’s no sign that belief in divine justice reduced the need for visible, human-administered justice.

//Divine justice works… no one has ever been punished for a crime they didn’t do…//

If that were observably true, earthly justice systems wouldn’t have developed in every civilization, including spiritual ones. The universal emergence of courts and policing is evidence that unseen cosmic corrections haven’t been enough to manage fairness or safety in daily life.

//You call karma impractical because you do not practice it…//

But earlier you said karma works for everyone like gravity.

Gravity doesn’t require belief or practice to hold us to the ground. If karma is truly that universal, it shouldn’t need “practice” to guide justice or public policy either.

//Individual harm does not create a collective burden unless a contract exists… you are under no obligation otherwise…//

Modern societies are built on shared contracts through taxes, pooled insurance, and public health systems. Even if an individual “doesn’t want” collective help, emergency responders can’t stop roadside to negotiate contracts before treating someone. Proportionate safety rules and laws exist to manage systemic costs and protect shared resources.

//Deterrence is mediocre and retribution is primitive…//

Modern justice isn’t medieval vengeance. Deterrence and proportional consequences protect others from harm and promote safer behaviour. These are preventative and restorative functions essential to public safety, not relics of a “primitive” mindset.

If cosmic justice alone could govern society, history would have left us temples, not courtrooms.

Dear John,

First to get this out of the way:
«Modern justice isn’t medieval vengeance.»
I never said that: modern justice is mediocre and unwise, but only its retribution element is medieval vengeance.

Now, you are perfectly correct in stating that
«cosmic corrections haven’t been enough to manage fairness or safety in daily life»
- One more important step is necessary, which I inadvertently omitted:
To gain safety, it is not enough to have faith in "cosmic corrections", but one must also act accordingly, be kind to all and refrain from violence, then wait patiently as the bitter fruits of their former wrong deeds gradually drain out and come out of the system.

It's like, one could have full faith in gravity, but if they still walk over the edge of their roof, then they will fall and break their bones.

Sorry for this omission and hopefully this removes our misunderstandings.

Now, when people have done bad things and are not yet ready to face the music, they will devise all sorts of tricks to postpone what's coming back at them, and a human-based justice-system is one such trick, which could even work for a while in giving them some relative safety... but at what cost - because in the course of applying their artificial justice system, they will create fresh violence and will later have to pay for that too!

For someone who has done nothing wrong, no unpleasant surprises could come - they are safe already, they don't need an extra justice system: there may still be criminals around, but they won't approach them. Same for the wise who did a few wrong things in the past but are now ready to face the music and atone, receive what's unpleasant gracefully and be done with it forever.

«Modern societies are built on shared contracts»

Modern societies (and practically any such large societies) are built on coercion. No such imaginary contracts ever existed.

«Proportionate safety rules and laws exist to manage systemic costs and protect shared resources»

Defending ambitious projects is different from self-defence, thus cannot justify violence.

You’re splitting hairs here, Yuyutsu:

//I never said that [modern justice is medieval vengeance]//

My point wasn’t that you called all of modern justice “medieval vengeance” - and I'm confident that that was pretty clear - but that you mischaracterise it by focusing only on retribution. Deterrence, protection, and fairness are essential parts of justice that you keep dismissing as “mediocre and unwise” without offering a functional alternative.

//Cosmic corrections haven’t been enough… one more step is necessary: perfect non-violence and patience…//

This isn’t a “misunderstanding,” it’s a goalpost shift.

Earlier, you claimed karma works automatically for everyone like gravity. Now, you say it only works if someone achieves perfect non-violence and has no remaining “bitter fruits” of past actions. That’s not gravity-like at all; it’s conditional and clearly doesn’t apply to real human societies.

//A human justice system is a trick to postpone karma… it creates fresh violence…//

If cosmic justice truly protected the virtuous and deterred wrongdoers, we’d expect karmic societies to need fewer laws and courts. In reality, they’ve had just as many, sometimes more. That fact remains unanswered.

//For someone who has done nothing wrong… no unpleasant surprises… criminals won’t approach them…//

This is an untestable spiritual claim that doesn’t reflect observable reality. Innocent people are harmed every day in every society. Public policy can’t rely on mystical assurances that criminals will “not approach” the virtuous, it has to manage tangible risks for everyone.

//Modern societies are built on coercion… no contracts exist…//

Constitutions, tax systems, public health frameworks, and pooled insurance are social contracts. They’re codified, debated, and enforced in every modern state. Dismissing them as imaginary doesn’t change the fact that they exist and that they require enforceable rules to function.

//Proportionate safety rules can’t justify violence…//

Proportionate enforcement of safety laws isn’t “violence.” It’s collective self-protection in systems where individual choices create shared costs. That’s exactly why every functioning society - including deeply spiritual ones - has courts, laws, and enforcement alongside any belief in divine justice.

Dear John,

«you mischaracterise it by focusing only on retribution»

Specifically In response to your enumeration of the goals of "modern justice".

«you keep dismissing as “mediocre and unwise” without offering a functional alternative.»

I offered not one, but two:

1) Do nothing. God will take care of justice anyway, perfectly without fail.
2) If you are not up to it, then at least limit your system to self-defence, strictly so, and be ruthlessly honest as to what is the minimum required to protect yourself and your loved ones from harm versus what is aimed at protecting other things, including rigid and insensitive structures you constructed over the years and self-invented contracts.

«it’s a goalpost shift.»

It was an omission on my behalf, I took it for granted and forgot to put in writing, especially given my attempt to fit everything in 4x350-word blocks a day (which I indeed exceeded on Friday).

«Earlier, you claimed karma works automatically for everyone like gravity.»

Newton never claimed that if you acknowledge the law of gravity, you will never fall. For that, you must acknowledge the law of gravity AND therefore abstain from walking over the edge of your roof.

If you watched the presentation by Swami Tadatmananda, he never claimed that anyone will be automatically protected without fulfilling their part of the deal.

«That’s not gravity-like at all; it’s conditional and clearly doesn’t apply to real human societies.»

Well of course, nor do all apples fall at once from their respective trees.
Gravity applies to individual apples and karma applies to individual souls.

«If cosmic justice truly protected the virtuous and deterred wrongdoers, we’d expect karmic societies to need fewer laws and courts.»

Cosmic justice indeed protects the virtuous.
Some wrongdoers are deterred, others not, and that is as should be: this planet was never designed to be heaven and had we been 100% virtuous ourselves, then we would never have reached here in the first place.

«Public policy can’t rely on mystical assurances»

It could, but people don't want to, because they are aware that they have not been completely innocent.

Neither is a workable system of justice though, Yuyutsu.

//I offered not one, but two alternatives…//

“Do nothing, God will handle it” isn’t governance, and “self-defence only” collapses everything societies need to function beyond individual households. Courts, laws, and enforcement emerged everywhere for a reason: real communities face conflicts and risks that don’t fit into your minimal self-defence box.

//It was an omission…//

Okay, but that’s still a shift. You originally said karma works like gravity for everyone. Now it only works if someone is perfectly non-violent and free of past “bitter fruits.” That’s not automatic, and it’s not universal.

//Gravity applies to apples, karma to souls…//

But every apple falls, regardless of belief or past mistakes. With karma, you’ve made it conditional and unverifiable. That’s why earthly justice systems are needed - they work predictably without relying on unseen moral purity.

//Cosmic justice protects the virtuous… this planet isn’t heaven…//

That concedes the point: karmic justice doesn’t actually ensure safety or fairness here on Earth. That’s exactly why karmic societies still had courts and laws - because cosmic protection wasn’t enough to manage real human risks.

//Public policy could rely on mystical assurances…//

Only if society were made of perfectly innocent beings. Since it’s not, policy can’t function on metaphysical guarantees. That’s why every real society, spiritual or secular, turned to human-administered justice alongside their beliefs.

Dear John,

«“Do nothing, God will handle it” isn’t governance»

It is governance, a perfect one, just not by humans.

(but I admit, "doing nothing" is not easy, hence the self-defence-only option)

«“self-defence only” collapses everything societies need to function beyond individual households.»

Whether or not this is the case, you provided no reason, not to speak of proof.

But suppose it is true, then you admit that for you, protecting ambitious projects is more important than respecting the freedom of others and not harming and hurting them.

The Romans would agree with you, that building their aqueducts and amphitheatres justified slavery, and accordingly, even the value of social entertainment justified the pain of gladiators.

«You originally said karma works like gravity for everyone»

It does, and just like gravity, the results are not always safe and pleasurable for all.

«Now it only works if someone is perfectly non-violent»

Karma also works proportionately: to the extent one is non-violent, to that extent after a while they will experience less violence.

«But every apple falls»

And reaches the ground a while after not being held up in place by another force.
Same for karma, once you stop resisting it by force, and you can only use that much force, for that long before becoming exhausted.

«karmic justice doesn’t actually ensure safety or fairness here on Earth.»

Isn't it just and fair that those inflicting [more] pain on others will suffer [more] and others not [or less]?

Safety on Earth? That's a dream, you reached the wrong planet, mate, no system of justice will give you that, the only constant on Earth is change. Accidents and crimes will keep happening, and throwing the culprit in jail cannot ease one's pain.

Public policies that aim to achieve complete safety, are misguided.
Public policies that attempt to achieve more safety through violence, just delay the pain, creating more violence and less safety overall.
Public policies that educate to reduce violence and trust God, on the other hand, can increase the level of safety.
Even then, you can only achieve relative safety in this world.

That’s not governance, Yuyutsu.

//“Do nothing, God will handle it” is perfect governance…//

It’s the absence of it.

Governance requires structures humans can rely on day to day. Saying “God will handle it” doesn’t resolve disputes, enforce contracts, or manage shared resources. That’s why even karmic societies built human justice systems - because they couldn’t function without them.

//Protecting ambitious projects is more important than freedom… like Roman slavery…//

Proportionate safety laws aren’t slavery. Equating seatbelt rules and courts to gladiator fights isn’t a serious comparison. Laws exist to manage real risks in shared systems, not to justify cruelty or conquest.

//Karma works like gravity… proportionate to non-violence…//

That’s still conditional, not universal. Every apple falls no matter what - it doesn’t fall only if it’s “virtuous.” Human justice works predictably for everyone, which is why societies can’t rely on unseen cosmic corrections.

//Safety on Earth is a dream… no system can give you that…//

If that’s true, why propose education or divine reliance to “increase safety”? That’s a policy choice, which means even you believe human action can change outcomes.

Real societies act on that principle every day through laws, courts, and enforcement, because waiting for cosmic perfection doesn’t solve practical problems.

Dear John,

«That’s not governance, Yuyutsu.»

Then call it by any other name - "The Kingdom of God is Justice and Peace and Joy in the Holy Spirit" [Romans 14:17]

Human governance is neither.

«Governance requires structures humans can rely on day to day.»

As if relying on God isn't enough and humans with their arrogant and violent structures can do any better.

«Saying “God will handle it” doesn’t resolve disputes»

Because then disputes do not arise to begin with!

«enforce contracts»

Because contracts are then followed lovingly.

«or manage shared resources»

Because there's enough for everyone under God's sun.

«That’s why even karmic societies built human justice systems»

Because despite their intellectual understanding, their faith, courage and inner-strength were lacking.

That's why I tell them, "then do the best you can and in due course, may God strengthen your faith, courage and resolve".

«Proportionate safety laws aren’t slavery.»

Not the laws obviously - their enforcement!

And you can't sell me that cheap propaganda as if enforcement is for people's safety: if they keep not wearing seatbelts then they will lose their license and if they continue to drive then they will be arrested and jailed, and if they try to escape then they will be taisered and if they are still not subdued then they will be shot "for their own health". Conditions in prison are no better than slavery.

We are not speaking of people who walk the streets with knives and stab people, nor rapists, nor robbers, we speak here about innocent people who travel for their private affairs, have asked nothing of your "society", haven't hurt a fly and pose no risk to anyone else!

«That’s still conditional»

Then similarly is gravity.
Apples fall only if nothing holds them up... and no bird eats them instead.

«Human justice works predictably for everyone»

You must be joking: blindly and lamely.

«why propose education or divine reliance to “increase safety”?»

Only if you like to have more safety, you don't have to!

Yes, the law of karma states that human effort can change outcomes: watch the presentation again!

Yuyutsu,

That’s a utopia no society has ever achieved - not even deeply karmic ones.

//Disputes don’t arise… contracts are followed lovingly… there’s enough for everyone…//

We keep coming back to this because it remains unaddressed: even where faith in divine justice was strongest, disputes still arose, contracts were broken, and courts were needed.

//Enforcement is slavery… tasers and shootings…//

That’s an extreme caricature.

Most enforcement isn’t brutal - it’s fines, license suspensions, and proportional penalties to deter harm and keep shared systems functioning. Comparing that to slavery or executions ignores how laws are actually applied day-to-day.

//Karmic societies built justice systems because their faith and courage were lacking…//

Exactly, and that’s the point that hasn’t changed through this discussion. If divine justice truly governed human behavior, those systems wouldn’t have been necessary. They existed because spiritual ideals alone couldn’t run a functioning society.

//Gravity is also conditional…//

Gravity works for every apple, every time - no faith, courage, or purity required. Human justice operates the same way: it delivers consistent, observable results. Karma, as you’ve described it, depends on conditions no society has fully met, which is why earthly justice has always been essential.

Even if divine governance is your ultimate ideal, human-administered justice is unavoidable because real communities aren’t utopias. That’s why it has existed alongside spiritual belief throughout history.

Dear John,

Indeed, utopia is not possible on earth, and for very good reasons, but it's possible to come close and limiting violence only to self-defence is a big step towards that.

There's a whole spectrum between Saint Jesus, who would turn his other cheek and allow himself to be crucified for his love for others, forgiving all and afraid of nothing and no-one, versus Stalin whose hands were so bloodied that he was afraid of all and had to kill in self-defence everyone around him.

Where would you like to place yourself and your society on that spectrum? Closer to Jesus or closer to Stalin? Where would people be happier?

Yes, if you recall my reply to Paul1405, even near-utopia is more difficult in large mega-societies, because they are difficult to escape; because they are more powerful thus abuse of that power is more tempting; because they are more rigid and unable to meet individual needs; and because there is no competition with other societies for human freedoms.

In near-utopic societies, an odd dispute could still arise here and there, or an odd contract broken, but if that happens, then one would, being educated, respond with wisdom rather than impulse and say: "Why has it come to that? I must have done something similar earlier to deserve this, so thank you God for helping me clear that account", then introspect and perhaps even be able to come up with exactly what it was they did.

Physical blows and iron chains are only one form of violence: bullies often can subdue their victims with words only, threatening physical violence and instilling fear, which is no less brutal.

Near-utopia doesn't occur overnight: as you caused pain to others in the past (including previous lives), now that pain has to find its way back to you - the apple has to fall, the fruits of your actions will necessarily come back to you, and that takes time. But if you continue causing pain to others during that time, including through the vehicle of "society", then this cycle of violence will never stop.

Yuyutsu,

Societies and individuals are far too complex to place on a two-dimensional spectrum. People are flawed, communities are complicated, and running them has always been about juggling safety, fairness, and freedom - not turning everyone into saints or slipping into dictatorship.

Even in spiritual, karmic cultures, people still hurt each other, broke their word, and fought over resources. Courts and laws came out of that reality. They weren’t set up to crush people, but to stop conflicts from getting worse and to give everyone a way to settle problems without sliding into chaos or payback feuds.

You describe a “near-utopia” where people introspectively accept suffering as karma. But history shows that hasn’t been enough to manage day-to-day risks in any real community. Education and compassion can make societies less harsh and more just, but they’ve never eliminated the need for structured, human-administered justice.

Until a society truly reaches universal sainthood - which no culture, spiritual or secular, has come close to - there’s no practical alternative to systems of governance that can enforce fairness and manage shared risks.

Dear John,

«juggling safety, fairness, and freedom»

Safety:

Absolute safety is contrary to the nature of this world and if you consider the implications of karma, the only way to achieve even relative safety, is to stop hurting others, then wait till the old negative karma is exhausted.

All you can do to improve safety is try to educate the population about non-violence.
Any other promises are selling them a pipe-dream, even if they believe you and consider you a hero.

Fairness:

Like you cannot open a door that is already open, you cannot create fairness when it is already embedded in God's universe.

The world only SEEMS unfair because people only see the tip of the iceberg.

Freedom:

When facing an imminent threat, you have a choice whether to try to bounce it or accept it gracefully as God's gift.
If you try to bounce it, you may or may not be successful and even if you succeed, the threat will re-emerge later in different forms, some of which are beyond your control.

Nevertheless, it is a real choice and there's nothing wrong if you choose to postpone what's coming at you and are able do so without violence.

But if violence is the only way out, then it is unwise to try to bounce the threat, because your overall suffering will only increase.

As an individual you may still choose violence (and suffer the consequences) and I will try to respect your choice, but when you act on behalf of society, what more, a society which includes both myself and others who never freely agreed to belong or have anything to do with that society and have no easy way to completely disassociate themselves from it, then that is a different matter.

It then becomes my very duty to protest loud and clear that your violent choice is not mine, is not on my behalf, does not serve me and that I am not willing to "benefit" from it (and in fact, incur your negative karma).

[continued...]

[...continued]

This is the ultimate and highest freedom, not the freedom to be foolish (which should still be respected), not even the freedom to take personal risks (which should also be respected), but the freedom to be wise and keep out of violence, preferring to receive immediate blows over prolonged future suffering.

[Caveat:
Of course, suppose you are serving a community where they are all there by choice and share a consensus to use violence in certain cases, so you are only acting as their servant, then to that extent the negative karma of your actions will be theirs, not yours. You may note however, that such a consensus is practically impossible in large societies.]

«Even in spiritual, karmic cultures, people still hurt each other...»

What makes a culture spiritual - their learned beliefs or their actions?
I believe it to be the latter!

«Courts and laws came out of that reality. They weren’t set up to crush people»

I believe it, or at least give them the benefit of the doubt, yet in effect, even if that was not the intention, they do crush people.

«history shows that hasn’t been enough to manage day-to-day risks in any real community.»

History refers to the relatively-short period since systematic written documentation began.

Even within history, some scrolls point at small and scattered societies that chose to peacefully absorb incoming violence, forgive and not retaliate. Oral tradition has it that it was more common in prehistorical times.

«there’s no practical alternative to systems of governance that can enforce fairness and manage shared risks.»

Enforcing what is already enforced and managing what is already managed.

But if you so believe, then allowing yourself to relax and be "impractical" (or at least partially-impractical, by limiting violence only to self-defence) will yield you and the people you care for more happiness in the long run.

Yuyutsu,

//“Absolute safety is contrary to the nature of this world… only way to achieve safety is non-violence… any other promises are pipe-dreams…”//

Absolute safety isn’t the goal of governance, managing risks is. Societies build rules not to promise perfection but to reduce predictable harm. That’s why every real-world community, spiritual or not, has had systems to handle dangers education alone couldn’t prevent.

//“Fairness cannot be created—it’s already embedded in God’s universe… the world only seems unfair…”//

If fairness were automatically enforced, human justice systems wouldn’t have been necessary. Yet even small, devoutly spiritual communities established courts and rules because fairness wasn’t consistently visible or self-executing.

//“Freedom… threats just return later… violence increases suffering… your choice shouldn’t bind me…”//

Freedom in a shared society has limits because our actions can impose costs on others. Justice systems balance personal choice with collective safety, otherwise freedom for one person can destroy freedom for another. That’s why communities valuing liberty still agreed to shared rules and enforcement.

//“Ultimate freedom is avoiding violence… consensus to use violence is practically impossible in large societies.”//

That’s precisely why governance is needed. Large, complex societies can’t rely on voluntary consensus alone, they’ve always needed enforceable rules to keep cooperation possible at scale.

//“What makes a culture spiritual is action, not belief… courts crush people…”//

Even by action, no spiritual culture managed without governance. Rules and enforcement existed because people’s actions still caused conflict and harm. Courts don’t exist to crush people - they emerged to prevent spiralling retaliation and unchecked violence.

//“History is short… oral traditions suggest peaceful prehistory…”//

There’s no evidence that large, stable, non-enforced societies ever existed. Smaller groups may have resolved disputes informally, but as populations grew, every community developed structured justice. If purely peaceful models worked long-term, we’d expect them to have scaled - they didn’t.

//“Enforcing what is already enforced… managing what is already managed… partial impracticality would bring happiness…”//

Enforcement wouldn’t have been invented everywhere if safety and fairness were already fully managed. Practical governance exists because unseen mechanisms haven’t been enough to settle disputes or share resources day-to-day.

Dear John,

«Absolute safety isn’t the goal of governance»

Indeed, but this draws to my attention that you never even stated, not to me anyway, what in your view IS the goal of governance.

«Societies build rules ... to reduce predictable harm»

If that indeed was the goal of societies, then they failed miserably: harm can only be reduced by stopping to harm others, yet societies constantly generate fresh harm of their own.

«Freedom in a shared society has limits»

But we don't have shared societies - we have violently-enforced societies. Had that been as you claim, with societies entered freely, then my attitude would be quite different. It's not that individuals volunteered to sacrifice some of their freedoms for the good of others - they were forced to without consent!

«If fairness were automatically enforced»

Failing to see it enforced doesn't mean it's not enforced.

«Large, complex societies can’t rely on voluntary consensus alone, they’ve always needed enforceable rules to keep cooperation possible at scale.»

Cooperation through coercion... how nice...

Surely large complex societies are harder to manage without violence.
I won't speculate whether it's even possible or whether you just don't have sufficient skills and wisdom to do it, but surely if for whatever reason that's beyond you, then you shouldn't have attempted such ambitious projects: who asked you to make societies large and complex? all you managed to achieve is to complicate people's lives and make them miserable. Strategic failure.

«no spiritual culture managed without governance.»

That can be argued, but the question was whether they can be managed without violence, not without governance.

«they emerged to prevent spiralling retaliation and unchecked violence.»

And instead created more of both.

«There’s no evidence that large, stable, non-enforced societies ever existed»

Maybe they did, maybe they did not, but I never said "large" - that's just your ambitious requirement.

«Enforcement wouldn’t have been invented everywhere if safety and fairness were already fully managed.»

Well it has been invented, for too many wrong reasons to list, but also because people failed to see the fairness with their naked physical eyes.

Yuyutsu,

I have said what I believe is the goal of governance: it manages risk, ensures fairness, and maintains cooperation.

//you never stated… what in your view IS the goal of governance//

But this isn’t just my personal view, it’s how governance has been understood and practiced throughout history, from small tribes to modern nations.

//harm can only be reduced by stopping harm… societies constantly generate fresh harm//

Reducing harm doesn’t mean eliminating all harm. That’s another straw man. Rules and enforcement exist to stop predictable, preventable harms - like reckless driving or fraud - that education alone hasn’t solved in any society.

//we don’t have shared societies… people were forced without consent//

No modern society can function on fully explicit individual contracts. Social contracts are implicit agreements, shaped by laws, constitutions, and shared institutions. Calling that “violent enforcement” dismisses how real governance has worked everywhere people have lived together.

//cooperation through coercion… ambitious projects shouldn’t have been attempted… strategic failure//

Scaling up societies wasn’t a mistake, it was a human response to survival needs (defence, trade, food security.) Every attempt at large-scale cooperation needed enforceable rules because relying solely on voluntary consensus failed to keep order or fairness.

//whether spiritual cultures can be managed without violence… they emerged to prevent spiralling retaliation and unchecked violence… instead created more of both//

That’s an assertion without evidence.

History shows the opposite: enforcement reduced cycles of revenge and stabilized communities. Without it, disputes escalated into blood feuds—not harmony.

//maybe non-enforced societies existed… I never said large societies//

This dodges the point.

If non-violent, non-enforced societies worked, they would have persisted or scaled. They didn’t. Courts and governance appeared everywhere humans formed enduring communities - small or large - because unseen fairness wasn’t enough to settle conflicts or manage resources.

//enforcement invented because people failed to see fairness//

If fairness were already handled automatically, there’d be no disputes to resolve and no reason to invent enforcement. But disputes happened, resources clashed, and harm spread without mediation. That’s why governance arose everywhere humans lived together.

These repeated misreadings make it hard to move forward.

Dear John,

«These repeated misreadings make it hard to move forward.»

Hold your horses: we have not yet established any common goals that we can both call "forward" and towards which I would be happy to move with you.

Actually, so far it tends to look like there are none.

«If non-violent, non-enforced societies worked, they would have persisted or scaled.»

Why, they just cared more about quality, not quantity!
And so do I.

«If fairness were already handled automatically, there’d be no disputes»

What's the one to do with the other?
If you are greedy (you mentioned «resources clashed») and quarrelsome, then you can fairly expect to have disputes.

«harm spread without mediation.»

Disputes can also be resolved by a revered, saintly, non-violent mediator.
Violent "mediators" (rather arbitrators) don't solve disputes, they suppress and push them underground. The bitterness remains.

«enforcement reduced cycles of revenge»

Enforcement institutionalise revenge.

«Without it, disputes escalated into blood feuds—not harmony.»

So courts and prisons are full with contented harmonious people?

«Scaling up societies...was a human response to survival needs»

Was due to rulers' power-hunger, needing their domination to survive.

«Every attempt at large-scale cooperation needed enforceable rules»

Because it made the people of the land unhappy.

«No modern society can function on fully explicit individual contracts»

What an excuse to explain-away non-existent contracts!
The emperor is naked, and who asked you to be "modern" anyway?

«Rules and enforcement exist to stop predictable, preventable harms»

Karma, like gravity, is unpreventable. Stopping a crime will not save the "victim" who would then instead be harmed in some other way.

«Reducing harm doesn’t mean eliminating all harm. That’s another straw man.»

And a claim I never made.

«the goal of governance: it manages risk, ensures fairness, and maintains cooperation.»

So it is fear-based, tries to fix what is not broken, and coercive.

I understand that you would like me to cooperate with you on goals I don't share, even oppose, and for that you would even be happy to use torture if you could get away with it.

Not even a mention of love, compassion, happiness...

Yuyutsu,

This is because your “goal” of governance - doing nothing and letting karma handle it - has never existed as a functioning system.

//we have not yet established any common goals… there are none…//

Every society, spiritual or not, had rules, mediators, and enforcement because without them, communities collapsed or descended into feuds. That’s history, not ideology.

//non-violent societies cared more about quality than quantity//

If they worked better, they’d have lasted longer. Instead, larger, governed societies replaced them because they solved more problems than they created.

//Disputes can be resolved by a saintly mediator… violent mediators suppress bitterness//

Peaceful mediation is part of justice systems. Courts, arbitration, and community councils evolved from exactly that need. They exist because disputes often didn’t resolve peacefully on their own. Calling every enforcement “institutionalized revenge” ignores the reality of cooperative settlements and reduced blood feuds throughout history.

//Scaling up societies… rulers’ power-hunger… people unhappy//

That’s an opinion, not an explanation for why people chose to band together for trade, shared defense, and mutual aid. If power alone explained it, large-scale societies would have fallen apart immediately. Instead, they endured and grew because they met collective needs small, voluntary groups couldn’t.

//Karma is unpreventable… stopping a crime won’t save the victim//

That’s unprovable metaphysics. In the real world, preventing a mugging or stopping reckless driving does save people from harm. That’s why enforcement exists: it has visible, measurable effects that cosmic justice doesn’t demonstrate in time to help anyone.

//fear-based… coercive… you’d even use torture…//

That’s rhetoric, not an argument. Proportionate enforcement isn’t torture. It’s what allows people to coexist without constant private retaliation. Love and compassion don’t replace rules; they work better when safety and fairness are upheld for everyone.

If we can’t agree on observable history - that every enduring community used governance and enforcement - there’s no realistic basis for progress in this discussion.

Dear John,

I already said that you don't need to "do nothing", that it would suffice if you limit violence only to self-defence.
Whatever governance you want to have which doesn't require violence, or where the violence is only for self-defence - why not, go ahead!

The three examples you just gave (disputes not resolving peacefully; mugging; reckless driving) reasonably fall within the perimeter of self-defence, so where's the problem?

Yes, I admire those who forego even self-defence in all circumstances and aspire to be like them, but I'm not there myself yet and certainly wouldn't expect that of others.

If you cannot manage a large society without violence (self-defence excused), then try having a smaller one.
I won't speculate whether large non-violent societies are even possible, but if you don't know how to do it, then humbly try asking for sage advice before embarking on such ambitious (and maybe even impossible) projects.

Like everything else on Earth, no society will last forever.
If you don't know how to build a long-lasting society without violence (self-defence excused), then build a shorter-lasting one.

And suppose you cannot create even a short-lived small society without violence, which does not forcefully impose itself on innocent others who are not interested, then don't have one. Since you are the one who is interested in having a society, the onus is on you to get it right.

Whatever be your reason(s) to have a large and long-lived society, whether that be to generate a false sense of safety using inadequate measures, whether that be to try and fix an unbroken fairness, whether it be to enjoy power and/or the luxuries that come with large societies, whatever it is, basic ethics come first and you have no right to impose yourself on others against their will, no matter what name(s) you go by, whether that be "society", "civilisation", "The State" or "Australia", it makes no difference - first be a decent human-being.

And if you are not, then don't expect to have my cooperation.

Yuyutsu,

This is a shift from where we started, because now you’ve accepted that governance can legitimately use self-defence. That’s exactly what proportional enforcement is: protecting people from harm (reckless driving, mugging, unresolved disputes) with minimal force.

Modern societies already operate on that principle. Enforcement isn’t supposed to be about power or revenge, it’s about defending people and shared systems so that cooperation is possible.

Your fallback - “just have a smaller, shorter-lived society or none at all” - doesn’t solve the problem. Even small, temporary communities throughout history have had rules, leadership, and enforcement to manage risks and conflicts. Without them, they fell apart or were absorbed by larger, more stable ones.

That’s not about luxury or domination, it’s about survival and cooperation. People formed enduring societies because life without them was shorter, harsher, and far more violent.

If we agree that self-defence is legitimate and that rules are needed to prevent predictable harm, then we’re already aligned with why courts, laws, and governance exist. The question becomes how to make them as humane and limited as possible, not whether they should exist at all.

Dear John,

This is not a shift: I said it in my very first post to you here, from July 27th:

"Self-defence isn't ideal - a saint would turn his/her other cheek instead, but as we are not yet saints, this is acceptable, mediocre but acceptable."

This, however, does not allow you to use self-defence as a loophole, expandable as to get even a D9 bulldozer through, starting subtly:

«you’ve accepted that governance can legitimately use self-defence.»

No, I've accepted that YOU can legitimately use self-defence.
The difference is still subtle, but then you keep expanding:

«it’s about defending people and shared systems»

So now you do not only defend people, yourself and your loved ones, now it also includes "shared systems", whatever that hides.

Then of course you would like to defend Ad Infinitum the-systems-which-defend-shared-systems, the-systems-which-defend-systems-which-defend-shared-systems...

That will never be enough, so I must put a clear stop here, even if it means that at times you will not be able to successfully defend yourself... which is the case anyway, no matter what you do, because you cannot keep bouncing away karma forever.

Earlier we dealt with a concrete example: seatbelts.
You wish to defend [using violence if necessary] what you claim to be a "shared system" (which actually is not) from, murder? No; rape? No; physical-assault? No; Mugging? No; Fraud? No... just the odd chance that someone will be injured on the road, require your [unsolicited] medical services and thus cost the poor taxpayer a few more dollars, which you would refuse to charge them back even if they had the money...

...this after just expressing yourself the wish to use only minimal force. In this case, the minimal force to save your kitty from such terrible "plunder", would be to ask for that money back, whether before or after the medical treatment.

And just imagine how many "dangerous villains" are lurking out there in their cars, happily willing to be injured and suffer extreme pains and disability in hospital just so they can rob your coffers in that way...

I intend to address your other points later.

You’re narrowing and reframing what you said, Yuyutsu:

//“This is not a shift… acceptable, mediocre self-defence…”//

That was about individuals, not societies. Large communities act collectively. Shared roads, hospitals, and emergency services can’t work if everyone negotiates their own rules. Governance preventing predictable harm is collective self-defence, not “infinite systems defending systems.”

//“Defending shared systems… systems defending systems… ad infinitum…”//

That’s a straw man. Shared systems aren’t endless layers - they’re concrete structures people depend on: roads, hospitals, police, courts. Defending those is defending the people who rely on them. Without functioning systems, individual self-defence becomes impossible: a mugging victim without a justice system stays exposed, a crash without traffic laws spirals into chain collisions.

//“Seatbelts… no murder, no assault… just costing taxpayers…”//

It’s far more than cost. Reckless choices tie up emergency crews, endanger other drivers, and overload hospitals. Sending a bill afterward doesn’t un-break a spine or free up a trauma bed. Laws prevent suffering in the first place. They’re proactive, not post-injury accounting.

//“You’d refuse to charge them back…”//

No, societies already recoup costs through taxes, insurance, and legal claims. Seatbelt laws cut those costs for everyone while reducing preventable injuries.

Self-defence at a societal scale has to include protecting people and the systems that keep them safe. Without collective rules and proportionate enforcement, the entire safety net collapses into chaos that harms even those who never asked to be involved.

Dear John,

Essentially what you are telling me, is that you don't know how to manage a large society without hurting, as well as obvious criminals, also innocent people who done you no harm and possibly even never asked you to be included in your society.

You don't know how and neither do I.
Perhaps there is a way to manage large societies without hurting innocents, perhaps there is none, yet even if there is, you rush in impatiently and unprepared - and hurt the innocents too.

As a rule, unless you somehow have the wisdom to reverse this (which I do not possess), the larger a society, the more rigid it tends to become, the less it can listen and be sensitive to individual needs, the less it can care for their outlying pains, the more it attracts abuse of power, the more difficult it is to leave, the less it needs to compete with other societies over the willing support of individuals.

You are trying to avoid the simple truth, that nothing you can do, whether as individual, as family, as a small society or as a large society, can guarantee safety: whatever layer of safety you add, at high costs at that, will not be complete, will present new problems and eventually either collapse or require an extra layer to protect it, at an even higher cost and hurt more innocents more deeply, as you place yourself in a never-ending arms-race with the criminals.

Cosmic law explains this observation, which is neither random nor incidental:
This world is designed for education, not for safety: the ancient sages wrote its user's manuals - read them!

We’ve been here before, Yuyutsu.

You’ve said:

- Large societies can’t function without hurting innocents.
- Safety is an illusion; efforts to improve it just spiral into new harms.
- Cosmic law makes this inevitable - sages already wrote the “manual.”

But that just restates the same premise: do less, trust karma. We’ve already covered why that’s never worked. Every society that tried to run without enforceable governance - small or large - collapsed into feuds or was replaced by societies that used rules and enforcement to actually reduce suffering.

You’ve also avoided key points:

- Karmic cultures still had laws and courts - if cosmic justice alone worked, they wouldn’t have needed them.
- Self-defence scales collectively - shared roads, hospitals, and justice systems prevent harm just as personal self-defence does. Without them, individual safety collapses.
- History doesn’t show thriving non-enforced societies - they either vanished or evolved into governed ones because unseen fairness couldn’t resolve disputes or manage resources.

Until you engage with these points directly, we’re just circling the same track while you reword the same argument.

//You don’t know how to manage a large society… neither do I… don’t build one.//

That’s an unrealistic premise.

Large societies weren’t “built” for power - they emerged out of necessity (trade, security, survival). Avoiding governance because it’s imperfect ignores that without it, chaos and greater harm followed.

//Every safety layer eventually collapses or needs another layer - an arms race with criminals.//

Calling this a “never-ending arms race” ignores how these systems evolved: justice and safety measures steadily reduced cycles of revenge, enabled large-scale cooperation, and improved life expectancy, freedom, and stability far more than cosmic waiting ever did.

Modern justice hasn’t just been an arms race - homicide and violent crime rates have plummeted compared to lawless or stateless eras.

//This world is for education, not safety.//

That’s a spiritual belief, not an explanation for how to run societies. Governance exists to manage real, observable risks - not wait passively for unseen cosmic lessons to unfold.

Dear John,

You nicely summarised my three points, except I was not affirmative on the first. Just because I never encountered non-violent large-societies and am clueless how that's possible, doesn't mean it's necessarily impossible.

«Every society that tried to run without enforceable governance... collapsed»

I incidentally just heard a talk on the radio by an expert "collapsologist". As risks for civilisation-collapse she listed climate, psychology, nuclear, AI, etc., but no word on metaphysics. She claimed that civilisations collapse after 250-300 years on average, thus ours is near its end and expects material standards to soon drop to 1800(AD) levels.

The point is, all societies collapse anyway, and sooner then you may think, not because they trust or mistrust karma. What's important is, that while their society existed, people who lived in societies that respected karma were happier. The law of karma applies to sentient beings, not societies.

«You’ve also avoided key points:»

I've not avoided anything. I'm struggling with the 4x350/day word-limit and try to prioritise my responses. I often had to remove responses to some of your points, as well as useful examples, just to fit in what I considered more important. Sometimes I even wrote responses offline, but new points appeared before I could post them.

This time I'm responding to your last post in order, then let's see how far I get before being blocked.

«Karmic cultures still had laws and courts»

First we need to establish what "karmic cultures" mean.
Belief without implementation is not enough:
The French revolution believed in Liberté, égalité, fraternité, yet so many lost their heads on the guillotine.

Then we need to establish whether their courts used violence and if so when.

«Self-defence scales collectively... Without them, individual safety collapses.»

FEELING safe could vary, but actual individual safety depends on individual karma alone.

«History doesn’t show thriving non-enforced societies»

Traditional legends actually claim they were,
I'm in no position to prove/disprove, nor need to further research,
because thriving as society is unimportant:
what's important is that the people were happy.
Isn't that, presumably, the end-goal of societies?
Otherwise, why have them?

Yuyutsu,

You’re still framing this as if it’s about me “building” or “controlling” society. It’s not. We’re discussing why every real society - spiritual or secular - needed governance and enforcement to manage risks humans can’t handle individually.

//All societies collapse anyway… //

Or they simply change.

Either way, that’s not proof that abandoning governance works. Societies that lasted centuries did so because they developed enforceable rules to manage cooperation and safety. That stability gave people more time and opportunity to pursue happiness than lawless or purely mystical communities ever did.

//Societies that respected karma were happier.//

There’s no historical evidence for that. In fact, prosperity and happiness have correlated more with peace, food security, and governance. Strong, enforceable systems - not divine justice - kept people safe and fed.

//Karmic cultures had laws… belief isn’t enough… need to see if violence was used.//

This is exactly the point: even deeply spiritual cultures - India, Tibet, Southeast Asia - maintained courts, police, and enforcement. If karmic belief alone kept people safe, those systems wouldn’t have existed. They emerged everywhere because unseen fairness couldn’t settle disputes or protect people in practice.

//Self-defence scales collectively… safety depends on karma alone.//

That’s unprovable metaphysics. Observable history shows that enforcement reduced feuds, deterred harm, and made cooperation at scale possible. Karma may be a personal belief, but it hasn’t removed the need for rules and mediation in any functioning community.

//Thriving non-enforced societies… legends claim they existed… happiness is the goal.//

Legends aren’t evidence of sustainable, scalable governance. Small, peaceful groups existed but were absorbed or replaced by governed societies because they couldn’t manage larger populations or defend against conflict. Justice systems and safety rules often enable people to live happier, freer lives without constant fear of retaliation or chaos.

We keep circling because you shift away from observable history and into mysticism or legends.

And you still haven’t addressed the core contradiction of karma why karmic societies still needed to build and rely on laws, courts, and enforcement.

Dear John,

I'll grab this 350-word block for myself, prioritising the presentation of my views over responding point-by-point to your endless barrage of questions at a rate I could never beat the race against posting-limits.

Belief on its own, with no follow-up, is nothing.

The Eastern mob believed in karma, because so did their parents and grandparents, without having to think much about it.
But have they actually abstained from violence? within their families or in the marketplace?
Have they not been stealing and cheating?
Did they deserve to have safety and stability just for proclaiming, "I believe in karma"?
Methinks not!

The Christian mob believes in Jesus and his deliverance.
Singing "I will follow Jesus Anywhere He leads us" can produce a nice warm feeling.
I like that too.
But have they actually followed Jesus, even unto the cross?
Or have the Christian crusaders been following Jesus on their murderous plunder of the Middle-East?
Will Jesus deliver them just because they sing?
Methinks not!

The Libertarian mob believes in whining and political action,
complaining about the government's impositions, harassment, insults and taking their money away in taxes (which they do).
But are they not still demanding things from government?
Like a strong military and police?
Don't they ask government to keep them and especially their properties safe?
Won't they call up the police if attacked or burgled?
Won't they sue others in court if they fail to return their money?
Will they still accept salaries at the tax-payer's expense?
Then do they still stand for liberty?
Methinks not!

Now here come the Western statist mob,
believing that government institutions can save them from all their sins.
“My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me.” [Deutoronomy 8:17]
To which the following verse (8:18) replies: "But remember the Lord your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth"!
Will they renounce violence?
Will they promise not to sin again?
Will they do their best to keep that promise?
Then is there a reason for them to be safe?
Methinks not!

Um, Yuyutsu...

//...your endless barrage of questions at a rate I could never beat ... posting-limits.//

I've asked you 10 questions - none of which have been in the last six days. You had asked me 22.

That difference is more akin to deflection than curiosity.

Every time I present a direct, grounded challenge - like why karmic cultures still built courts and used enforcement - you respond with a flurry of new questions, or retreat into mystical language. But you don’t answer.

Instead, you’ve projected onto me the very traits this pattern reveals in you: rigidity, unwillingness to adapt, faith in an ideal over evidence. You even warn that I’m the one rushing in “unprepared” - but it’s your model that has yet to demonstrate a single enduring, workable example.

That’s not just projection. It’s an evasion of the basic test every worldview must pass: Can it work? Has it worked?

You say you’re not certain large non-enforced societies are impossible. Fair enough. But until one emerges, the rest of us still have to live in reality. And in reality, safety, justice, and cooperation require rules, not reincarnation. Governance evolved not from ego, but from necessity - a way to resolve disputes without violence, to protect the vulnerable, and to support freedom in a shared world.

That’s what I’ve been defending all along - not perfect control, but better outcomes than vague metaphysical hope.

If your model has something better to offer, you need to show it.

Until then, your 22 questions don’t obscure the one I’m still waiting for you to answer:

If karmic justice truly prevents harm and settles disputes, why did karmic societies still build courts and use enforcement?

Dear John,

Due to limits, I had no opportunity yet to post all my draft-replies (both answers-to-questions and objections to statements/assumptions on which they were based): how am I to know that this particular question is more important to you than others?

«If karmic justice truly prevents harm and settles disputes,»

A preamble I never claimed (karmic justice only prevents harm and further disputes in the long run, once one renounces violence), but that wasn't your question:

«why did karmic societies still build courts and use enforcement?»

As I asked previously, what do you mean by "karmic society"?
A society that believes in karma, but does nothing about it?
That I addressed in my previous post.

Or are you looking for a society which, believing in karma, actually renounced violence, but still had violent courts and a "justice" system which didn't respect the principles of karma and hurt even innocent people if need be for its survival? Now that's a clear contradiction and you know well there haven't been any such societies!

Voluntary non-violent societies did exist, prehistorically more than historically, which didn't use violent policing/courts, only non-violent mechanisms of mediation and arbitration, then when a rare dispute could not be resolved they may have asked a member politely to leave, who then usually left. They may have been small, they may have not survived for long, so what? They may have not been able to protect themselves against invading societies, their members preferring to be killed rather than corrupted, and if they got killed by an invading society, then that was their residual karma too, which they accepted lovingly and got rid of forever.

Now it seems I have a little more space left:

«Can it work? Has it worked?»

What do you mean by "work"?
Their objectives were different to yours, so it worked for them.
They looked for peace, so they lived and died in peace.
They wanted to be rid of their negative karma forever, which they did.
You seem to have different objectives.
They may work for you, but you won't find peace this way.

Yuyutsu,

You’re still treating this as if I’ve appointed myself ruler of all societies. I haven’t. This isn’t about me or what I want. it’s about what actually works.

There’s a recurring historical pattern: every functioning society (including those shaped by karmic belief) eventually developed rules and enforcement because karma alone didn’t prevent harm or settle disputes.

//What do you mean by ‘karmic society’?//

Any society that believed in karma deeply and sincerely enough for it to shape their values, ethics, and worldview. These weren’t half-hearted believers - and yet they still saw the need to codify their rules and punished the violators

If karma alone maintained peace, that wouldn’t have been necessary.

In practice, even deeply spiritual cultures didn’t rely on karma alone. Their belief in unseen justice didn’t remove the need for mediation, deterrence, and protection. Those systems weren’t perfect, but they reduced harm far more reliably than relying on post hoc spiritual balance.

//What do you mean by ‘work’?//

I mean: did it deliver ongoing safety, fairness, and cooperation across generations - or did it depend on tiny populations, fragile harmony, and end in eventual annihilation?

But I think you knew that and were hoping I'd phrase it clumsily enough to give you an “in.”

You say these communities were conquered, died out, or didn’t last - but that “it worked for them.” But survival matters. If a society can’t persist, protect its members, or scale without collapsing, then it doesn’t “work” in any sustainable or practical sense - especially if it leaves the vulnerable exposed. Calling death or conquest “lovingly accepted karma” doesn’t change the outcome.

And this still goes unanswered:

If karmic justice were enough to maintain peace, why did karmic societies still build enforcement systems?

Until that’s addressed directly, we’re not talking about a working alternative - just a belief.

Dear John,

«If karmic justice were enough to maintain peace,»

It isn't meant to maintain peace.

There's no peace for the wicked, nor should there be, for then they will not learn!

«why did karmic societies still build enforcement systems?»

Thanks for clarifying what you mean.

Thus defined, karmic societies limit their protection to non-violent means, so enforcement could include peaceful persuasion, public censor/disapproval and passive non-cooperation.

«You say these communities were conquered, died out, or didn’t last»

That could be said of ANY community.

«But survival matters»

For some more than for others.

«If a society can’t persist...then it doesn’t “work”...»

Then it doesn't fulfil your preferences.

However:
1) no society can protect its members anyway.
2) any society collapses sooner or later, after 250-300 years on average.
3) "practical" depends on specified goals. It's meaningless otherwise.

«especially if it leaves the vulnerable exposed.»

Nobody asked you to leave them exposed: do care for them, house them, feed them, heal them, just don't use violence!

«Calling death or conquest “lovingly accepted karma” doesn’t change the outcome.»

Only the physical body dies, outcomes from your actions continue.

«But I think you knew that and were hoping I'd phrase it clumsily enough to give you an “in.”»

That's paranoia: I have no time for cunning, this conversation already eats up at my other engagements.

«...did it deliver ongoing safety, fairness, and cooperation across generations-or did it depend on...?»

Of that list, the law of karma only delivers fairness, regardless of circumstances.
Ongoing safety can only be had by renouncing violence.

«...belief in unseen justice didn’t remove the need for mediation,...»

Certainly. Belief doesn't remove the need for anything, only actual practices can.

And anyway, what's wrong with [peaceful] mediation?

«but they reduced harm far more reliably»

That's your faith, believing only in the visible.

«every functioning society...eventually developed rules and enforcement»

PERHAPS, but not necessarily violent enforcement.

«as if I’ve appointed myself ruler of all societies.»

But you advocate for a certain type of society.

«it’s about what actually works.»

What works depends on what you are trying to achieve.

Yuyutsu,

Thanks for the reply. It helps clarify just how far apart our definitions - and priorities - really are.

//Karmic justice isn’t meant to maintain peace.//

And that’s part of the issue.

You’re not offering a replacement for governance, you’re offering a metaphysical framework for spiritual purification. That may be fine as personal belief, but it doesn’t answer the real question: how do we run societies in ways that protect people from harm? And we’ve both seen what happens when harm is left to “teach a lesson.”

//Karmic societies used peaceful persuasion, disapproval, and passive non-cooperation.//

That’s a nice ideal. But the karmic societies I referred to - India, Tibet, Southeast Asia - weren’t relying solely on social disapproval. They developed courts, legal codes, and yes, police and punishment. If you’re now saying they weren’t karmic enough, then you’ve shifted from historical examples to an imagined standard no known society has met - which avoids the question entirely.

//All societies collapse anyway.//

Or they evolve into others, yes.

But some last longer, protect more people, and reduce more harm along the way. That’s the point of governance: not perfection or permanence, but better outcomes than warlordism, conquest, or silence.

//Don’t use violence!//

If someone is assaulting a child, and words fail, then yes - physically stopping them is justified. That’s not wickedness. That’s moral courage.

//Karma only delivers fairness.//

But fairness delayed beyond a lifetime isn’t justice. It’s a faith claim. Governance exists because real harm happens now - and people need protection now, not in the next life.

//What works depends on what you are trying to achieve.//

Exactly. I’m trying to achieve a world where fewer people suffer preventable harm, even if it means imperfect systems and hard trade-offs.

You’re trying to achieve karmic purification. That’s fine, but it’s not a governance model. It’s not a plan. And until you can show how your approach keeps people safe without relying on the very systems you reject, we’re not comparing alternatives. We’re contrasting belief with practicality.

Dear John,

If governance was the only thing you ever cared about, then you already know how to do it and don't need me.

But when I ask you why you want governance, you start breaking it up into sub-goals/components which you think can be simultaneously achieved, albeit imperfectly, through governance.

One such goal-component I don't share is fairness, because in my view it's already in place so there's nothing further to achieve.

But another I do share is: «I’m trying to achieve a world where fewer people suffer preventable harm»

(why only people? but that's a question for another day)

One obvious way to achieve that is to reduce the overall number of people in the world (but that could possibly conflict with other components).

Then, I explained, looking at the same issue from a different angle (not through my superior clairvoyance, but through the wisdom of the sages of old), that due to invisible natural laws [details too long to include right-now: as much as I would like otherwise, I had to cut them], the only PREVENTABLE harms, are those that are still unborn from new, yet-uncommitted, hurtful actions.

And the way to prevent others from being harmed by preventable harms, is therefore to educate them about non-violence.
(you could also try to threaten others to deter them from doing harm, but then you have created more harm yourself and will suffer for it)

«If you’re now saying they weren’t karmic enough»

I believe so, at least in historical times, though I also believe that earlier, in prehistoric times, truly-karmic societies did exist.

«But some last longer, protect more people, and reduce more harm along the way»

Only if they manage to protect without creating new violence.

«If someone is assaulting a child...»

Correct, that comes within self-defence.
This situation is too complicated to analyse in a few words, but then you pass, not with distinction, just a pass.

«people need protection now, not in the next life.»

That's nice. The question is whether, beyond sympathising, you can actually protect them, or only create a semblance of protection.

Thanks for the honesty, Yuyutsu.

If even you believe that truly karmic, non-governed societies only existed in unverifiable prehistory - and that none in recorded history have managed to scale, endure, or protect their people without enforcement - then I think we’ve reached the natural conclusion of this discussion.

It’s fair to say your position isn’t a model for societies today, but a spiritual philosophy for individuals.

//“Why only people?”//

I don’t stop at people. That’s why I’m vegan.

Why stop at cows?

Dear John,

I would like to thank you as well: not too many in this forum can understand my points like you.

«then I think we’ve reached the natural conclusion of this discussion.»

Good, then I supppose I can now close all these browser-tabs with partial responses that never saw the light of day.

«It’s fair to say your position isn’t a model for societies today, but a spiritual philosophy for individuals.»

Then please remember if in future you find yourself in a society's leadership position, that not all of those you include in your society share your values or are there by free choice: some may have lower values, yet others have higher ones.

And please take note of my short comment posted on Leyonhjelm's sister thread: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23589#399643

«I don’t stop at people. That’s why I’m vegan.»

This is wonderful and also saves us from another tiring long discussion, and while we are likely to meet again, we now deserve a good rest, however:

...

Dear Paul,

If you are still here with us then thank you so much for your patience and if you still like to resume the conversation on primitive tribes then here I am.

Thanks for the article David Leyonhjelm- good points.

Sort of a corollary to the Kruger Dunning effect. The scope of academic impact on society has anecdotally increased, this could be seen as a coup over society. Even trades people now spend more time in tertiary education at TAFE than previous eras. The organising of the whole of society into an academic authoritarian hierarchical semi- military structure of abstraction from reality seems doomed to failure. Plato pointed at the sky and abstraction whereas Aristotle pointed at the earth and experience. Of course both are at times necessary, but when abstraction is built upon nested abstraction, and all are hidden behind the veil of expertise, failure is immanent.

Engineers time needs to be balanced between the office and the laboratory.

Many times things come down to power, as Bob Whittacker indicates the academy has become "the Egyptian priethood" of our age.

There's much more to say here... maybe later.

Sorry... Imminent

Canem Malum,

That’s a lot of nested abstraction for a post warning about nested abstraction.

If we’re talking about a “coup over society” by academia, it would help to ground it in at least one clear, real-world example:

What specific decision, policy, or institution are you saying failed because of this over-theorising?

And how did academic influence make that outcome worse?

Otherwise, it risks sounding like the very “abstraction built upon abstraction” you’re criticising.