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?