It seems like "obey or else" can be worded differently and used constructively.
Someone gave the example of a bad house guest who is being destructive and disruptive.
To say "hey don't do that" is, in my opinion, NOT saying "obey me or else", it's setting a BOUNDARY, a reasonable, rational boundary, and expecting it to be respected.
Boundaries should not be demonized but nurtured and recognized, exercised and respected. It's give and take.
So yeah, manipulative 'obey or else' behavior is never good. Actually, habitual manipulation of others, the act of exercising manipulative control over another- emotional, verbal, physical, spiritual, etc- constitutes abusive behavior. And absolutely, yes, we should be recognizing abusive behaviors as a culture and making a shift to healthy boundaries. Boundaries mean that at some point, yes, the action will no longer be tolerated. And that should be a reasonable conclusion to the scenario in question.
Problem is, our culture, at least here in America, is founded on a culture of abuse, abuse excusal, and shaming the abused. The vast majority of people learn to manipulate, control, and abuse one another as children. It can be extremely difficult trying to contend with those behavior patterns in a social environment, as we all probably know. We all know that one person who just seems to control, micro-manage, and moderate everyone around them. We tolerate it when we love the person, but at some point the boundary needs to be set; no more, or else. The opposite of "obey or else", IMO. The refuse to continue being controlled by another.
I have read the words of many folks wanting to set up new communities, or recruiting for existing ones, and I see a lot of red tape, hard boundaries that aren't entirely rational, steep expectations, and a demand for conformity. To me, that's what I thought of when I first read "obey or else".
I guess I would consider a "respect the boundaries set in place, or else" to be the healthy alternative to handling community misconduct. Which takes the entire community coming together and agreeing upon those reasonable, respectful boundaries. I don't think that job can be left to just 1 person, even if that person is the capital owner of the land or infrastructure. That becomes a pyramid, and I feel like that really causes communities to crumble.
But, hey, what do I know?