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