[...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.