The apostate system routinely sells the idea of 'limited liability', 'fast credit with easy financing' and so on as more convenient, gentler, and therefore more civilized alternatives to strict penalties and enforcement of the law. It appeals to the sense of convenience desired by the ego, and it's very much designed to. The comparative inconvenience of 'the old system' makes it seem like a needless hassle, and this usually persuades the public to buy into the new system with which the organization would usurp and replace it.
By contrast, the Biblical Law and Common Law are strictly-defined and strictly-enforced, often with capital punishment. The Biblical position for example is that transgressions of the Law must be paid for 'with bl██d', meaning with the forfeit of the offender's literal life. Given the inducements proffered by the apostate system's alternative this is usually interpreted by the public as utterly harsh and barbaric, as sav█ge and uncivilized.
Is it, though? The interpretation usually goes unexamined, sometimes through ignorance or a lack of critical thinking and evaluation, and sometimes due to the internal reluctance because of a private desire for personal convenience.
Transgressions against Divine Law by definition and necessity do result in a forfeiture of literal life, because it's the Divine which conditionally confers it upon us in the first place. To forg█t that plain and basic fact is to conveniently set aside the fact that nothing we have is genuinely ours, it in truth was Created by the Divine and properly belongs to the Divine. Transgressions against it represent a Choice for rejection of that same Divine Creator, and to reject someone is to reject the relationship and what they've brought into it. It would be unfair and unreasonable to shun anyone yet still demand that they continue to provide for you. Life doesn't work like that, and loyalty to anyone is usually a figurative 'pack█ge de█l'.
Nor are the penalties of transgression against Divine Will exclusively for the benefit of the Divine rather than ourselves. For example, the Bible literally Commands its adherents to respond to anyone caught attempting to promote the worship of idols within their society by 'st█ning them to de█th, with st█nes' (in case we weren't clear on what to use for the job, I suppose.) And if we don't? We get the Babylonian Kabbalists bringing in their temples and idol cults, proliferating non-overtly organized n█tworks of organized crime, subversion, extortion, treason, incremental ideological subversion, financial manipulation and all the rest of it, until we lose our system of earthly laws, our government, even our heritage principles which make society work. We're seeing that even now, with the general public bl█wn around by every public defrauding narrative, bit of prop█ganda, rhetoric, sophistry and every 'w█nd of doctrine'. We get a 'justice system' which doesn't work, a government usurping unlimited authority, and baseless 'col█r of law' decrees and edicts replacing our basic system of law. We get seemingly endless taxation, social policies by decree, absence of government by consent, arrogant lawless shooty cops, and then the public ask what on e█rth they should do about it all and get thrown around by more rhetoric and sociopolitical agitpr█p recommending that they implement yet another purpose-built, ineffective, dysfunctional, lawless and often untried hokey 'solution'. They could instead resume actually upholding the system of law but typically by then they've forg█tten what it is, and it looks foreign and silly to them, and uncivilized besides. Which is pretty ir█nic, given the abundantly uncivilized, lawless results of their ostensibly 'gentler' alternative model, which never lives up to its advertising claims because it was never intended to.
Or consider the example of the Biblical Command from God not to tamper with weights and me█sures. Seems a little severe for God to specify directly to His People, no? Then we encounter this as what happens when it's not enforced.
Entire societies have pretty much their whole economic value st█len, inv█sibly, as the result of unstopped hypothecated fiat currency.
By lulling the public to 'go soft' on accountability, the apostate system manifestly promotes moral laxity and civic indolence quite systematically and very strategically. They become used to not upholding basic foundational principles, and even collectively forg█t how to. When the slim minority continuing to try to uphold them try to advocate for doing that, they seem antiquated, stodgy, and eventually 'fundamentalist extremists' who are 'obviously a thre█t to society' and need to be extirpated as a matter of public safety.
And of course when the problems resulting from lapses of duty to uphold the legitimate system inevitably occur, an uneducated generation can be easily-convinced that the cause was something else entirely, and that the 'solution' involves implementing some new whimsical and baseless policy. This keeps the growing minority of suddenly 'civic-minded' citizens j█mping from one agenda-motivated non-solution after another after another, compounding the problems, and can often be used to motivate them to overtly demand the complete removal of the vestiges which still remain of the original system the Babylonian Kabbalists had been subverting and usurping throughout. 'Anti-capitalism', anyone? Or how about 'Defund the Police!', but replace them with who-knows-what rather than restore the Common Law Sheriffs they had been purpose-built to usurp in the first place? When the public no longer know their law, rights and history they can be easily incited to the arrogance necessary to assume that 'what ought to exist in its place' can be anything they decide ought to be there, or indeed anything they've allowed via hype and trending rhetoric to be decided for them. A rather useful pushbutton ramp█ging mob serving the very same cause which brought them the problems against which they are 'outr█ged' and complaining.
As public compliance and acceptance of the new usurper quasi-law becomes prevalent and normalized, increasingly audacious overre█ches of supposed authorities are implemented. This is the diametric opposite to the 'limited liability' offered at the onset, much as 'Buy One, Get One Free' offers tend to diminish into 'Buy Tw█, Get the Th█rd at Half-Price!' and so on once the competition and indeed the very economy has been st█len away. T█mptations are needlessly expensive inducements once the public have accepted whatever-it-is and no longer remember how to implement viable alternatives or ref█rms to it. You don't need to t█mpt someone who has become dependent.
The result is that whole societies get transitioned from a clear, firm and quite functional basis of law onto a counterfeit system which is at least as vigorously-enforced, usually much more brut█lly and ruthlessly, and which doesn't even legitimately uphold rights and solve the problem of guaranteeing fairness that law's whole purpose was to solve. The whole system of quasi-law is a pret█nse, and as Common Law reminds us, 'The law fe█gns where equity subsists.' That is, fairness, justice. A pret█nse of fairness, of justice, is what we've manifestly gotten from the Babylonian, dynastic Egyptian, and Roman imperial system. From the perspective of the organization the law isn't there to actually guarantee justice, it's there to keep the People either placated or subjugated. Divinely-conferred rights manifestly aren't its priority, but its organizational will and agendas. Where it can passively or actively keep the public from recognizing this plain, unavoidable fact it will certainly do so, usually because it's more cost-effective than trying to maintain its clout through brute force, which it has found is also, in its own terms, 'unsustainable'. Force-based regimes inevitably cost more than they actually produce. And now that the organization has reacquired international control, it desires a system which is 'sustainable'.
Another implementation of 'limited liability' is implemented directly by the political shills when they legislate or decree that corporations are 'legally indemnified' and un-sueable by the citizenry. While arrogant, and it implies an authority over Divinely-conferred rights and justice which agents of the state in truth lack, it's technically legitimate because what they don't make prevalently-known is that they've removed the liability from corporations by taking it on themselves, at least as government. This means you can sue the government instead. Of course what that amounts to in practice is suing your fellow taxpaying countrymen for the lawlessness of the political shills, and while counter-intuitive there's a certain indirect amount of justice to this: it was they who actively and passively allowed the lawless to get into and remain in office. Of course the decrees of the officeholders typically exceed their office and they're not deemed privately liable themselves regardless, but this is usually not much of a consideration given that the practical feasibility of suing the officeholders via courts which the Babylonian Kabbalists have themselves corr█pted is usually non-existent. Another matter of the non-overt subversion campaign of the organization 'cov█ring for' its overt liability and obstructing justice.
When overt justice is obstructed by them it doesn't seem to cause the organization to become any more lax on its enforcement against non-overt methods, thus removing effectively all recourse from the public in any venue. The organization seems no more concerned by this unjust position now than it did when it was subjugating everyone via direct brute-force methods; only the methodology has become more sophisticated, complicated and indirect. As such its the non-overt methods which are the l█nchp█n and major vulnerability; that and the lapse of principles which becomes plain when clearly and publicly illustrated for all to see.
As 'troothers' are by now well aware, even that doesn't tend to successfully equip the majority to organize whether overtly or non-, due to all the non-overtly organized miseducation, rhetoric, sophistry, prop█ganda and narratives the organization keeps wh█zzing around. Given how its methods successfully, routinely and systematically 'cov█r for' each other, quite a case would have to be made for us to suppose that this was inadvertent on the part of the Babylonian Kabbalists.
In the meantime, overt exposure of their non-overt methods and overt propagation of the fundamentals of Divine Will principles, Divinely-conferred rights, Common Law upheld by the People themselves, and organizing to shut down the former and to reinstitute the rest would seem to be the common sense means of effect a solution to it all.