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...]