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.