Yuyutsu,

//“Absolute safety is contrary to the nature of this world… only way to achieve safety is non-violence… any other promises are pipe-dreams…”//

Absolute safety isn’t the goal of governance, managing risks is. Societies build rules not to promise perfection but to reduce predictable harm. That’s why every real-world community, spiritual or not, has had systems to handle dangers education alone couldn’t prevent.

//“Fairness cannot be created—it’s already embedded in God’s universe… the world only seems unfair…”//

If fairness were automatically enforced, human justice systems wouldn’t have been necessary. Yet even small, devoutly spiritual communities established courts and rules because fairness wasn’t consistently visible or self-executing.

//“Freedom… threats just return later… violence increases suffering… your choice shouldn’t bind me…”//

Freedom in a shared society has limits because our actions can impose costs on others. Justice systems balance personal choice with collective safety, otherwise freedom for one person can destroy freedom for another. That’s why communities valuing liberty still agreed to shared rules and enforcement.

//“Ultimate freedom is avoiding violence… consensus to use violence is practically impossible in large societies.”//

That’s precisely why governance is needed. Large, complex societies can’t rely on voluntary consensus alone, they’ve always needed enforceable rules to keep cooperation possible at scale.

//“What makes a culture spiritual is action, not belief… courts crush people…”//

Even by action, no spiritual culture managed without governance. Rules and enforcement existed because people’s actions still caused conflict and harm. Courts don’t exist to crush people - they emerged to prevent spiralling retaliation and unchecked violence.

//“History is short… oral traditions suggest peaceful prehistory…”//

There’s no evidence that large, stable, non-enforced societies ever existed. Smaller groups may have resolved disputes informally, but as populations grew, every community developed structured justice. If purely peaceful models worked long-term, we’d expect them to have scaled - they didn’t.

//“Enforcing what is already enforced… managing what is already managed… partial impracticality would bring happiness…”//

Enforcement wouldn’t have been invented everywhere if safety and fairness were already fully managed. Practical governance exists because unseen mechanisms haven’t been enough to settle disputes or share resources day-to-day.

Dear John,

«Absolute safety isn’t the goal of governance»

Indeed, but this draws to my attention that you never even stated, not to me anyway, what in your view IS the goal of governance.

«Societies build rules ... to reduce predictable harm»

If that indeed was the goal of societies, then they failed miserably: harm can only be reduced by stopping to harm others, yet societies constantly generate fresh harm of their own.

«Freedom in a shared society has limits»

But we don't have shared societies - we have violently-enforced societies. Had that been as you claim, with societies entered freely, then my attitude would be quite different. It's not that individuals volunteered to sacrifice some of their freedoms for the good of others - they were forced to without consent!

«If fairness were automatically enforced»

Failing to see it enforced doesn't mean it's not enforced.

«Large, complex societies can’t rely on voluntary consensus alone, they’ve always needed enforceable rules to keep cooperation possible at scale.»

Cooperation through coercion... how nice...

Surely large complex societies are harder to manage without violence.
I won't speculate whether it's even possible or whether you just don't have sufficient skills and wisdom to do it, but surely if for whatever reason that's beyond you, then you shouldn't have attempted such ambitious projects: who asked you to make societies large and complex? all you managed to achieve is to complicate people's lives and make them miserable. Strategic failure.

«no spiritual culture managed without governance.»

That can be argued, but the question was whether they can be managed without violence, not without governance.

«they emerged to prevent spiralling retaliation and unchecked violence.»

And instead created more of both.

«There’s no evidence that large, stable, non-enforced societies ever existed»

Maybe they did, maybe they did not, but I never said "large" - that's just your ambitious requirement.

«Enforcement wouldn’t have been invented everywhere if safety and fairness were already fully managed.»

Well it has been invented, for too many wrong reasons to list, but also because people failed to see the fairness with their naked physical eyes.

Yuyutsu,

I have said what I believe is the goal of governance: it manages risk, ensures fairness, and maintains cooperation.

//you never stated… what in your view IS the goal of governance//

But this isn’t just my personal view, it’s how governance has been understood and practiced throughout history, from small tribes to modern nations.

//harm can only be reduced by stopping harm… societies constantly generate fresh harm//

Reducing harm doesn’t mean eliminating all harm. That’s another straw man. Rules and enforcement exist to stop predictable, preventable harms - like reckless driving or fraud - that education alone hasn’t solved in any society.

//we don’t have shared societies… people were forced without consent//

No modern society can function on fully explicit individual contracts. Social contracts are implicit agreements, shaped by laws, constitutions, and shared institutions. Calling that “violent enforcement” dismisses how real governance has worked everywhere people have lived together.

//cooperation through coercion… ambitious projects shouldn’t have been attempted… strategic failure//

Scaling up societies wasn’t a mistake, it was a human response to survival needs (defence, trade, food security.) Every attempt at large-scale cooperation needed enforceable rules because relying solely on voluntary consensus failed to keep order or fairness.

//whether spiritual cultures can be managed without violence… they emerged to prevent spiralling retaliation and unchecked violence… instead created more of both//

That’s an assertion without evidence.

History shows the opposite: enforcement reduced cycles of revenge and stabilized communities. Without it, disputes escalated into blood feuds—not harmony.

//maybe non-enforced societies existed… I never said large societies//

This dodges the point.

If non-violent, non-enforced societies worked, they would have persisted or scaled. They didn’t. Courts and governance appeared everywhere humans formed enduring communities - small or large - because unseen fairness wasn’t enough to settle conflicts or manage resources.

//enforcement invented because people failed to see fairness//

If fairness were already handled automatically, there’d be no disputes to resolve and no reason to invent enforcement. But disputes happened, resources clashed, and harm spread without mediation. That’s why governance arose everywhere humans lived together.

These repeated misreadings make it hard to move forward.

Dear John,

«These repeated misreadings make it hard to move forward.»

Hold your horses: we have not yet established any common goals that we can both call "forward" and towards which I would be happy to move with you.

Actually, so far it tends to look like there are none.

«If non-violent, non-enforced societies worked, they would have persisted or scaled.»

Why, they just cared more about quality, not quantity!
And so do I.

«If fairness were already handled automatically, there’d be no disputes»

What's the one to do with the other?
If you are greedy (you mentioned «resources clashed») and quarrelsome, then you can fairly expect to have disputes.

«harm spread without mediation.»

Disputes can also be resolved by a revered, saintly, non-violent mediator.
Violent "mediators" (rather arbitrators) don't solve disputes, they suppress and push them underground. The bitterness remains.

«enforcement reduced cycles of revenge»

Enforcement institutionalise revenge.

«Without it, disputes escalated into blood feuds—not harmony.»

So courts and prisons are full with contented harmonious people?

«Scaling up societies...was a human response to survival needs»

Was due to rulers' power-hunger, needing their domination to survive.

«Every attempt at large-scale cooperation needed enforceable rules»

Because it made the people of the land unhappy.

«No modern society can function on fully explicit individual contracts»

What an excuse to explain-away non-existent contracts!
The emperor is naked, and who asked you to be "modern" anyway?

«Rules and enforcement exist to stop predictable, preventable harms»

Karma, like gravity, is unpreventable. Stopping a crime will not save the "victim" who would then instead be harmed in some other way.

«Reducing harm doesn’t mean eliminating all harm. That’s another straw man.»

And a claim I never made.

«the goal of governance: it manages risk, ensures fairness, and maintains cooperation.»

So it is fear-based, tries to fix what is not broken, and coercive.

I understand that you would like me to cooperate with you on goals I don't share, even oppose, and for that you would even be happy to use torture if you could get away with it.

Not even a mention of love, compassion, happiness...

Yuyutsu,

This is because your “goal” of governance - doing nothing and letting karma handle it - has never existed as a functioning system.

//we have not yet established any common goals… there are none…//

Every society, spiritual or not, had rules, mediators, and enforcement because without them, communities collapsed or descended into feuds. That’s history, not ideology.

//non-violent societies cared more about quality than quantity//

If they worked better, they’d have lasted longer. Instead, larger, governed societies replaced them because they solved more problems than they created.

//Disputes can be resolved by a saintly mediator… violent mediators suppress bitterness//

Peaceful mediation is part of justice systems. Courts, arbitration, and community councils evolved from exactly that need. They exist because disputes often didn’t resolve peacefully on their own. Calling every enforcement “institutionalized revenge” ignores the reality of cooperative settlements and reduced blood feuds throughout history.

//Scaling up societies… rulers’ power-hunger… people unhappy//

That’s an opinion, not an explanation for why people chose to band together for trade, shared defense, and mutual aid. If power alone explained it, large-scale societies would have fallen apart immediately. Instead, they endured and grew because they met collective needs small, voluntary groups couldn’t.

//Karma is unpreventable… stopping a crime won’t save the victim//

That’s unprovable metaphysics. In the real world, preventing a mugging or stopping reckless driving does save people from harm. That’s why enforcement exists: it has visible, measurable effects that cosmic justice doesn’t demonstrate in time to help anyone.

//fear-based… coercive… you’d even use torture…//

That’s rhetoric, not an argument. Proportionate enforcement isn’t torture. It’s what allows people to coexist without constant private retaliation. Love and compassion don’t replace rules; they work better when safety and fairness are upheld for everyone.

If we can’t agree on observable history - that every enduring community used governance and enforcement - there’s no realistic basis for progress in this discussion.

Dear John,

I already said that you don't need to "do nothing", that it would suffice if you limit violence only to self-defence.
Whatever governance you want to have which doesn't require violence, or where the violence is only for self-defence - why not, go ahead!

The three examples you just gave (disputes not resolving peacefully; mugging; reckless driving) reasonably fall within the perimeter of self-defence, so where's the problem?

Yes, I admire those who forego even self-defence in all circumstances and aspire to be like them, but I'm not there myself yet and certainly wouldn't expect that of others.

If you cannot manage a large society without violence (self-defence excused), then try having a smaller one.
I won't speculate whether large non-violent societies are even possible, but if you don't know how to do it, then humbly try asking for sage advice before embarking on such ambitious (and maybe even impossible) projects.

Like everything else on Earth, no society will last forever.
If you don't know how to build a long-lasting society without violence (self-defence excused), then build a shorter-lasting one.

And suppose you cannot create even a short-lived small society without violence, which does not forcefully impose itself on innocent others who are not interested, then don't have one. Since you are the one who is interested in having a society, the onus is on you to get it right.

Whatever be your reason(s) to have a large and long-lived society, whether that be to generate a false sense of safety using inadequate measures, whether that be to try and fix an unbroken fairness, whether it be to enjoy power and/or the luxuries that come with large societies, whatever it is, basic ethics come first and you have no right to impose yourself on others against their will, no matter what name(s) you go by, whether that be "society", "civilisation", "The State" or "Australia", it makes no difference - first be a decent human-being.

And if you are not, then don't expect to have my cooperation.