Dear John,

«That’s not governance, Yuyutsu.»

Then call it by any other name - "The Kingdom of God is Justice and Peace and Joy in the Holy Spirit" [Romans 14:17]

Human governance is neither.

«Governance requires structures humans can rely on day to day.»

As if relying on God isn't enough and humans with their arrogant and violent structures can do any better.

«Saying “God will handle it” doesn’t resolve disputes»

Because then disputes do not arise to begin with!

«enforce contracts»

Because contracts are then followed lovingly.

«or manage shared resources»

Because there's enough for everyone under God's sun.

«That’s why even karmic societies built human justice systems»

Because despite their intellectual understanding, their faith, courage and inner-strength were lacking.

That's why I tell them, "then do the best you can and in due course, may God strengthen your faith, courage and resolve".

«Proportionate safety laws aren’t slavery.»

Not the laws obviously - their enforcement!

And you can't sell me that cheap propaganda as if enforcement is for people's safety: if they keep not wearing seatbelts then they will lose their license and if they continue to drive then they will be arrested and jailed, and if they try to escape then they will be taisered and if they are still not subdued then they will be shot "for their own health". Conditions in prison are no better than slavery.

We are not speaking of people who walk the streets with knives and stab people, nor rapists, nor robbers, we speak here about innocent people who travel for their private affairs, have asked nothing of your "society", haven't hurt a fly and pose no risk to anyone else!

«That’s still conditional»

Then similarly is gravity.
Apples fall only if nothing holds them up... and no bird eats them instead.

«Human justice works predictably for everyone»

You must be joking: blindly and lamely.

«why propose education or divine reliance to “increase safety”?»

Only if you like to have more safety, you don't have to!

Yes, the law of karma states that human effort can change outcomes: watch the presentation again!

Yuyutsu,

That’s a utopia no society has ever achieved - not even deeply karmic ones.

//Disputes don’t arise… contracts are followed lovingly… there’s enough for everyone…//

We keep coming back to this because it remains unaddressed: even where faith in divine justice was strongest, disputes still arose, contracts were broken, and courts were needed.

//Enforcement is slavery… tasers and shootings…//

That’s an extreme caricature.

Most enforcement isn’t brutal - it’s fines, license suspensions, and proportional penalties to deter harm and keep shared systems functioning. Comparing that to slavery or executions ignores how laws are actually applied day-to-day.

//Karmic societies built justice systems because their faith and courage were lacking…//

Exactly, and that’s the point that hasn’t changed through this discussion. If divine justice truly governed human behavior, those systems wouldn’t have been necessary. They existed because spiritual ideals alone couldn’t run a functioning society.

//Gravity is also conditional…//

Gravity works for every apple, every time - no faith, courage, or purity required. Human justice operates the same way: it delivers consistent, observable results. Karma, as you’ve described it, depends on conditions no society has fully met, which is why earthly justice has always been essential.

Even if divine governance is your ultimate ideal, human-administered justice is unavoidable because real communities aren’t utopias. That’s why it has existed alongside spiritual belief throughout history.

Dear John,

Indeed, utopia is not possible on earth, and for very good reasons, but it's possible to come close and limiting violence only to self-defence is a big step towards that.

There's a whole spectrum between Saint Jesus, who would turn his other cheek and allow himself to be crucified for his love for others, forgiving all and afraid of nothing and no-one, versus Stalin whose hands were so bloodied that he was afraid of all and had to kill in self-defence everyone around him.

Where would you like to place yourself and your society on that spectrum? Closer to Jesus or closer to Stalin? Where would people be happier?

Yes, if you recall my reply to Paul1405, even near-utopia is more difficult in large mega-societies, because they are difficult to escape; because they are more powerful thus abuse of that power is more tempting; because they are more rigid and unable to meet individual needs; and because there is no competition with other societies for human freedoms.

In near-utopic societies, an odd dispute could still arise here and there, or an odd contract broken, but if that happens, then one would, being educated, respond with wisdom rather than impulse and say: "Why has it come to that? I must have done something similar earlier to deserve this, so thank you God for helping me clear that account", then introspect and perhaps even be able to come up with exactly what it was they did.

Physical blows and iron chains are only one form of violence: bullies often can subdue their victims with words only, threatening physical violence and instilling fear, which is no less brutal.

Near-utopia doesn't occur overnight: as you caused pain to others in the past (including previous lives), now that pain has to find its way back to you - the apple has to fall, the fruits of your actions will necessarily come back to you, and that takes time. But if you continue causing pain to others during that time, including through the vehicle of "society", then this cycle of violence will never stop.

Yuyutsu,

Societies and individuals are far too complex to place on a two-dimensional spectrum. People are flawed, communities are complicated, and running them has always been about juggling safety, fairness, and freedom - not turning everyone into saints or slipping into dictatorship.

Even in spiritual, karmic cultures, people still hurt each other, broke their word, and fought over resources. Courts and laws came out of that reality. They weren’t set up to crush people, but to stop conflicts from getting worse and to give everyone a way to settle problems without sliding into chaos or payback feuds.

You describe a “near-utopia” where people introspectively accept suffering as karma. But history shows that hasn’t been enough to manage day-to-day risks in any real community. Education and compassion can make societies less harsh and more just, but they’ve never eliminated the need for structured, human-administered justice.

Until a society truly reaches universal sainthood - which no culture, spiritual or secular, has come close to - there’s no practical alternative to systems of governance that can enforce fairness and manage shared risks.

Dear John,

«juggling safety, fairness, and freedom»

Safety:

Absolute safety is contrary to the nature of this world and if you consider the implications of karma, the only way to achieve even relative safety, is to stop hurting others, then wait till the old negative karma is exhausted.

All you can do to improve safety is try to educate the population about non-violence.
Any other promises are selling them a pipe-dream, even if they believe you and consider you a hero.

Fairness:

Like you cannot open a door that is already open, you cannot create fairness when it is already embedded in God's universe.

The world only SEEMS unfair because people only see the tip of the iceberg.

Freedom:

When facing an imminent threat, you have a choice whether to try to bounce it or accept it gracefully as God's gift.
If you try to bounce it, you may or may not be successful and even if you succeed, the threat will re-emerge later in different forms, some of which are beyond your control.

Nevertheless, it is a real choice and there's nothing wrong if you choose to postpone what's coming at you and are able do so without violence.

But if violence is the only way out, then it is unwise to try to bounce the threat, because your overall suffering will only increase.

As an individual you may still choose violence (and suffer the consequences) and I will try to respect your choice, but when you act on behalf of society, what more, a society which includes both myself and others who never freely agreed to belong or have anything to do with that society and have no easy way to completely disassociate themselves from it, then that is a different matter.

It then becomes my very duty to protest loud and clear that your violent choice is not mine, is not on my behalf, does not serve me and that I am not willing to "benefit" from it (and in fact, incur your negative karma).

[continued...]

[...continued]

This is the ultimate and highest freedom, not the freedom to be foolish (which should still be respected), not even the freedom to take personal risks (which should also be respected), but the freedom to be wise and keep out of violence, preferring to receive immediate blows over prolonged future suffering.

[Caveat:
Of course, suppose you are serving a community where they are all there by choice and share a consensus to use violence in certain cases, so you are only acting as their servant, then to that extent the negative karma of your actions will be theirs, not yours. You may note however, that such a consensus is practically impossible in large societies.]

«Even in spiritual, karmic cultures, people still hurt each other...»

What makes a culture spiritual - their learned beliefs or their actions?
I believe it to be the latter!

«Courts and laws came out of that reality. They weren’t set up to crush people»

I believe it, or at least give them the benefit of the doubt, yet in effect, even if that was not the intention, they do crush people.

«history shows that hasn’t been enough to manage day-to-day risks in any real community.»

History refers to the relatively-short period since systematic written documentation began.

Even within history, some scrolls point at small and scattered societies that chose to peacefully absorb incoming violence, forgive and not retaliate. Oral tradition has it that it was more common in prehistorical times.

«there’s no practical alternative to systems of governance that can enforce fairness and manage shared risks.»

Enforcing what is already enforced and managing what is already managed.

But if you so believe, then allowing yourself to relax and be "impractical" (or at least partially-impractical, by limiting violence only to self-defence) will yield you and the people you care for more happiness in the long run.