Tao of Liberty : Dialogue in Heaven between Laozi and Kongzi

2

Tao of Liberty: Dialogue in Heaven between Laozi and Kongzi

LIU Junning

3

Published in Potsdam in 2014 by Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom Department International Politics Karl-Marx-Strae 2 D-14482 Potsdam email: [email protected] Author Liu Junning Foreword by Dr. Rainer Adam Copyright Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom and the author. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers. ISBN 978-3-9816609-7-5

4

Contents Foreword ................................................................................................................................................ 5

Authors Note ......................................................................................................................................... 6

About the Translator ............................................................................................................................... 7

About this book ...................................................................................................................................... 8

Dialogue 1: The Inferiority of the Superior ............................................................................................... 9

Dialogue 2: To Conquer and Withdraw ...................................................................................................15

Dialogue 3: The Road to Happiness .......................................................................................................22

Dialogue 4: When Government Becomes a Stationary Bandit ...................................................................29

Dialogue 5: Why must Political Institutions Comply with Human Nature? ...............................................34

Dialogue 6: Why is there no Virtue in Politics? ........................................................................................39

Dialogue 7: The Tao of War ...................................................................................................................46

Dialogue 8: Why does Forced Wealth Redistribution Lead to the Equality of Poverty? ..............................52

Dialogue 9: I and We ......................................................................................................................58

Appendix ..............................................................................................................................................63

5

Foreword

Prof. Liu Junning can be considered to be the most distinguished Chinese scholar in the field of liberal thought. In several rankings of the 50 most important public intellectuals in China, he is the only political scientist listed. Professor Liu promotes public debate by publishing frequently on various channels in online social media, where he also uses different styles of publication to attract interest and open a way to deepen understanding of his arguments. In his Tea Talks series an outstanding example of his work in this regard, he is letting the leading symbols of Chinese thought through the centuries, Lao Tzu (Laozi) and Confucius (Kongzi), discuss with each other. Through this approach he is able to uncover liberal notions that are deeply rooted in Chinese culture and indicate their potential contributions to contemporary Chinese development. We as a Foundation are thankful for the possibility of publishing selected chapters of the Tea Talk series in English, to bring this part of ongoing Chinese debate to a broader Western audience. By addressing non-Chinese readers, we also hope to contribute to a wider and deeper understanding of domestic Chinese philosophical and political discussion in 21st century China. You dear reader, will hopefully enjoy reading the Tea Talks as much as I did. Personally I hope enough interest will be awakened to look beyond the surface of the Peoples Republic current promotions. Younger and older thinkers have served their country since the May 4 movement, and have never stopped searching, developing and discussing ideas for a better China.

Dr. Rainer Adam

6

Authors Note

This Dialogue intends to prove that China indeed has a long and solid spiritual heritage of freedom founded by Lao Tzu. Like the people around the world, Chinese people also want to be free. They also want to live in a liberal political order and under a desirable polity that protects individual freedom, property, and dignity, and that limits the power of the rulers. They require a polity that maximizes individual freedom and at the same time minimizes state coercion and arbitrary intervention. Through in-depth discussions and virtual debates between Lao Tzu and Confucius, the Dialogue aims to address the most perplexing, profound and fundamental questions of a political philosophical nature- to re-establish the great tradition of human liberty in China, upon both the local and the common spiritual heritage of whole mankind. I wish to express my appreciation to Dr. Rainer Adam, the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom's former regional director for Southeast and East Asia, for the support while I worked on this Dialogue and for the enduring efforts in promoting liberty and its ideas in China.

Liu Junning

7

About the Translator

Jude Blanchette is the assistant director of the 21st Century China Program at

UC San Diego. He lived and worked in China for more than six years, and was

the Beijing-based representative for the Atlas Economic Research Foundation.

His translations have appeared in the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times,

among other publications. He holds degrees in economics and modern Chinese

studies from Loyola University and the University of Oxford, respectively.

8

About this book

The dialogue in Heaven between Laozi and Kongzi is based on the 81 chapters of the Tao Te Ching or the Book of Tao. The Tao Te Ching is a Chinese classic text. The received Tao Te Ching is a short text of around 5,000 Chinese characters in 81 brief chapters or sections. The text is fundamental to both philosophical and religious Taoism. It had strong influence other schools of thought, such as Legalism, Confucianism and Chinese Buddhism. When these were first introduced into China, they were usually interpreted through words and concepts provided by Daoism. According to tradition, it was written around 6th century BC by the sage Laozi, a

record-keeper at the Zhou dynasty court, by whose name the text is known in

China. The text's true authorship and date of composition or compilation are still

debated although the oldest excavated text dates back to the late 4th century BC.

Therefore, each dialogue in this book is based on different chapters of the Tao

Te Ching as mentioned below.

Dialogue 1: Chapter 7 in Tao Te Ching









9

Dialogue 1: The Inferiority of the Superior

Why should we think the government and those in power are free from

vested interests?

Kongzi: There is a question thats been nagging at me: humans clearly are inclined towards pursuing their selfish interests, especially those in power who use their position to pursue personal gain. As a result, I have been continuously searching for an effective means of countering this. Would it not be the case that if all of humanity, both the powerful and the powerless, set aside their selfish motives, our world would be free from conflict? Unfortunately, I have yet to find a satisfactory solution, and I would appreciate hearing your wisdom on this matter. Laozi: You are correct in that this is an extremely vexing dilemma for humanity. My opinion on the matter is thus: all living creatures live within this universe, and while the universe is everlasting, the lifespan of each organism is limited. The universe doesnt exist for its own sake, but rather it provides room for the existence of these organisms. The difference between the universe and the range of life contained within in it is that organisms were created for their own sake. So too was their sense of self-interest. Indeed, this selfishness is one of the innate characteristics of every living creature, taking root in their base instincts. You might say that selfishness is a prerequisite for survival. Of course, with selfishness comes dispute, and with dispute comes conflict. The real question is: given the immutable nature of self- interest, how do we alleviate or solve the various types of conflict that are bound to arise. You are free to despise humanitys selfish instincts, but there exist innumerable examples of attempts to snuff out selfishness that have ended in disasters far worse than the ill consequences of self-interests. Kongzi: I see that you are discreetly criticising my esteem for the public good over the interests of the individual. But I should admit that I have a fairly negative opinion towards things that are done for the individual alone. I much

10

prefer that which is open to the public, and I believe we must subdue our self-interest. Of course, I am not advocating that we attempt to snuff out all that could be called self-interest. The late-Song Dynasty Confucian philosopher Zhu

Xi (), in his extreme opposition to individual human desire, went too far. His position and mine are quite different. Although I am not in a position to expel him from the ranks of the Confucian scholars, I would like to emphasize that there is a great deal of daylight between his perspective and mine. Laozi: True, there are those who still admire the learning of Zhu Xi. However, I believe it is disastrous for those in power to treat all types of personal desire as if there were identical, as was done during the Cultural Revolution when anything

that smacked of private () was denounced.

There are two yardsticks for evaluating learning: one is from the perspective of quality of the learning itself, and the other is from the perspective of political consequences of that learning. If, for example, we were evaluating pure knowledge, than the former yardstick would be sufficient. But if we are exploring the effects on learning from political action, naturally the latter yardstick is more appropriate.

Kongzi: Id like to return to the question at hand. If we take it as a given that selfishness is a permanent condition, does that mean we are helpless in the face of its ill consequences? Laozi: I recommend that we once more return to the perspective of the relationship between the universe and all living things within it. Let us suppose that a government is the universe, and the people are the living things contained within. Any group of people is composed of individuals, and these individuals are in possession of the instinct of self-interest. It is in their nature to pursue freedom and wealth. Thus the people as a whole are selfish, and nothing could be more natural. However, the government and the rulers must be free from this self-interest, which is to say, they must be free from vested interests. If they are not, government officials are bound to expand their own interests at the expense of the people, which in turn would greatly damage the relationship between the rulers and the ruled.

11

Yet we must remember that government is not the head of state, nor is a government the exclusive domain of public officials. It is, rather, the government of all the members of society. It is the government of the public domain, not the private domain of a few. The regime in power is merely the peoples chosen administrator, rather than their owner. Thus, those in a position of power who use their influence to pursue personal gain are acting immorally and should be restrained. No matter how unreasonable they might seem, the people have the right to petition the government in their own interest. When conflicts arise among the people, a government can step in at their request to rebalance the situation. What members of the government cannot not do, however, is to use public power for their own interests. Kongzi: But you have yet to offer a solution to the problem of vested interests. What method is there that could convince the rulers to limit their selfishness? Laozi: This is the crux of the matter, as well as being the point at which my analogy of the government and the universe falls apart. The universe is natural, while government, the product of certain members of society, is not. Those who control the levers of power are still human, after all. Borrowing from the language of economics, rulers are also Homo Economicus. As they are mere mortals, how can we expect them to be free from selfishness? The nature and mission of government calls upon those who exercise power to be free from self-interest, yet given that our rulers are still human, they are destined to be selfish. Whats more, for these same rulers, the more power they control, the more their selfish instincts will grow. To overcome this dilemma, I propose the principle of subordination and deference. As I have written elsewhere, The sage [in our case, the government] puts his own person last, and yet it is found in the foremost place; he treats his person as if it were foreign to him, and yet that person is preserved.1 In short,

the Inferiority of the Superior ( ). When it comes to their own

1 The following translation is taken from Lao Tzus Tao Te Ching, Chapter 7, translated by James Legge

(1815-1897), the first professor of Chinese at the University of Oxford.

12

personal interests, the ideal government and ruler should imitate the Tao of

Heaven () by submitting to the principle of looking to their own affairs only after seeing to the affairs of the people first. They must completely abandon their vested interests and forsake all that runs counter to the interests of the people. Whenever there is a contest over benefit between ruler and the ruled, the former must give way. It is only under this state of affairs that the people will give the ruler their whole-hearted consent. With tyranny, however, the ruler places his own interests above all. If there is gain to be had, it is the ruler who rushes in first to snatch it up, leaving the masses to fight for the crumbs. Under a tyrannical system, the ruler seeks to maximize his gains by using the machinery of State to compel the people to become selfless. In such a competition, the people are bound to lose to the ruler. When they have nothing more to lose, the people cast off their yoke, and the ruler soon learns what defeat is like. When the masses are angered, even the life of the ruler is under threat. Isnt this how all of Chinas dynasties have ended?

Kongzi: Youve given a thorough explanation of deference (), but can

you explain further the meaning of subordination ()?

Laozi: What I mean by subordination () is that a government and a nations ruler must not look upon themselves as the North Star, nor must they view the people as simpletons. They are not positioned up on high looking down upon society, nor are the masses an object to be trodden underfoot. Those in power must have respect for the people, and be willing to place themselves in a

subordinate position to the masses (). When the legitimacy of personal selfishness is accepted, it then follows that each individual is the best judge of his or her own self-interest. As such, they do not require a government to conduct their personal affairs, such as commanding farmers which crops to plant, telling factory owners which products to produce, and telling academics which books to write. A government or a ruler is not omniscient, nor is it the case that as the States power grows, so does its wisdom, allowing it to understand and conduct all of lifes affairs. A government must travel alongside the people, not pretend that it can act as their leader. It cannot say to the people I will lead the way, and you will follow. The government

13

must listen to the people, not the other way around. The ideal system of government is one in which institutions allow the people to give the government instructions through regular elections, representatives, or the media. As government officials are public servants, it is the people who should be saying to the rulers We will lead, and you will follow. It is only under the rule of a despot that the people are mere subjects. In summary, these two principles -- subordination and deference and putting the self last, treating the self as foreign -- advocate a government free from personal interests and overconfidence. We must always remember that a government does not rely on its own strength to govern, but in fact owes its strength to the abilities and power of the people. As a result, the government must allow for the maximum amount of personal freedom and respect for their rights. Nor should it interfere in the personal affairs of its citizens. It must relegate itself to the sphere of public affairs, giving a wide berth to that which does not concern it. Kongzi: I see that you love to use the word government. But in my reading of

your Tao Te Ching (), I see that you there prefer the word sage (). Does this mean that youve exchanged one for the other? And if that is so, does

this indicate that you are suspicious of the rule by man ()? Laozi: Youve raised an important point. Certainly in using the word government over sage, I am admitting a certain degree of skepticism of the rule of man. However, at the time I wrote the Tao Te Ching2 we did not yet possess the word government in the Chinese language. The tradition of using an individual to stand in for an institution is old and far-reaching, such as the

concept of the legal person ( ). I use the term sage as a sort of anthropomorphised form of ideal government, with the ruler and the

government being the incarnations of the divine order () and justice (). The true sage must possess a thorough understanding of statesmanship, as was

2Circa 6th century BC

14

stated in an explanatory note to the Shouwen Jiezi3 (): one must first listen before one speaks. Put another way, all opinions can be heard and all

speech can be tolerated (). The sages personality must

lend itself towards open ears and a closed mouth (), as well as an emphasis on dealing with practical matters over propaganda. Of course I greatly detest those who call themselves sage but do not live up to the name. We must always use quotation marks when referring to these pretenders.

Heaven and Earth are Everlasting. Their Ability to Endure, Is because they Are Altruistic, And Thus All Things Can Develop. Therefore a government that Submits to the Tao of Heaven, Should Let the People Seek Their Interest First, Seeking Benefit For Itself Outside Itself, and Giving Freedom to All Living Things. Do You Really Want Your Rulers to be without Selfishness? Or Will Its Interests Be Realized In Protecting a Domain of Selfishness?

3 The Shouwen Jiezi is one of the oldest dictionary of Chinese characters, its origins dating back to late-Han period (25-220 BC).

15

Dialogue 2: To Conquer and Withdraw

Why does the greatness of a leader not redound to the people?

Kongzi: Before you arrived, I took the opportunity to give a thorough reading to the 9th chapter of the Tao Te Ching. I was struck by the fact that you are not only a profound political philosopher, but also an extraordinary philosopher of everyday life. When gold and jade fill the hall, their possessor cannot keep them safe. When wealth and honors lead to arrogance, this brings its evil on itself.4 What great truth! Too many of the rich are replete with arrogance. Laozi: The target of my writing and my council are only those individuals in power. It does not refer to the average person, nor to those of considerable wealth. When I write of the gold-and-jade-filled hall, I speak not of money, but of power. There is nothing wrong in Bill Gates amassing a fortune, nor should we concern ourselves with the arrogance of some wealthy individuals, as this is a matter of personal style. Fortunes are sometimes lost to this arrogance, but again, this is not a matter of concern for the people. And so I am not overly worried about the issue of private fortunes. But when the President of a nation achieves great wealth, we must remain vigilant. It is important that we investigate the source of such wealth and ask if it was earned in a just manner. Even if it was, and even if it was earned before this individual assumed office, we must still ask if this wealth will influence the fairness of government policy and its administration. Therefore, we must be on guard against this collusion of wealth and political power. Our vigilance must be directed towards these individuals as opposed to the ordinary rich. But I should add that even if a great amount of wealth is plundered through the use of power, this is not the end of the story. After all, were the descendants of

4James Legge, Tao Te Ching, Chapter 9 (1891)

16

the Qing Dynasty rulers able to maintain their control of the Forbidden City? Was [the first Emperor of a unified China] Qin Shi Huang or his descendants able to control [the city of Xians] Epang Palace in perpetuity? Having the unimpeded ability to plunder is not the same thing as having the ability to control this wealth forever. Kongzi: But what if the ruler is doing his utmost to enrich the governments coffers, but at the same time doing so in a manner that is wholly disinterested in personal profit. Is there anything wrong with this? Laozi: There most certainly is something wrong. Indeed, there are even times when an uncorrupted ruler is more harmful than a corrupt one, for if the former strives to fill the State coffers, they do so at the expense of the peoples blood and sweat.5 This would put the State in direct competition with the people, even so far as expropriating their wealth. The result would be a rich State and a poor population. If the people are too poor to survive, whats the point of a bursting State treasury? States that are overly powerful have a tendency to become bellicose. Ive not yet seen a rich State with a poor population that is able to persist for very long, as its power is superficial. Moreover, the money in the State treasury is there to be spent by government officials; avoiding corruption is exceedingly difficult. It is because of this that I do not believe in the existence of a so-called clean and uncorrupted ruler. While he may look simple and unadorned, he quite often takes the entire nation to be his personal property. Should a societys wealth reside with the people? Or should it be moved from the streets and into the palace? The answer goes without saying.

Kongzi: I think I follow what youre saying. When it comes to the governing of a country, good intentions are necessary, but not sufficient. More importantly, we must see how these intentions affect the welfare of the people. Turning to a different question, youve said elsewhere when the work is done, and one's name is becoming distinguished, to withdraw into obscurity is the way of Heaven. 6 Why must one withdraw into obscurity? This puzzles me. Ive

5Lit. the fat or lard of the people () 6 James Legge, Tao Te Ching, Chapter 9 (1891)

17

always believed that a great leader should remain in office. One might say that while there is life, the work continues and that one should bend to a task and spare no effort unto one's dying day.7 It is these qualities that the great political leader should possess. Laozi: When a thing reaches its limit, it turns. When the sun sits atop the sky, it will then descend. Upon reaching its fullest, the moon will then recede. When the water is full, it overflows. When flowers reach full bloom, they will soon

wither. Extreme happiness cannot endure forever. This is the natural law (

), and it applies to politics as well. Whatever one does, it must be done in moderation. One must cease action when it has reached an appropriate moment, and one must not be concerned with the display of ones talents, or to seek unwarranted compensation. All of these are excess behaviors, and as such, they invite disaster. Examples abound of politicians falling for the entrapments of material greed and complacency towards their responsibilities. Actually, the Tao

of Heaven 8 ( ) has never been concerned with claiming credit or with revealing itself. And so if politicians claim everything as the result of their effort, what room does this leave for the contribution of the Tao of Heaven?

Kongzi: But consider the problem of compelling a great leader to step down only to have him replaced by someone mediocre, or even someone wildly ambitious. Then what? If a leader has been shown to be great, does not his permanence in office prevent someone of lesser status from taking over the reigns of State? Laozi: Mediocre politicians bring with them mediocre benefits, such as lowering

the expected value () of political leaders. If a politician's time in office is restricted, then the arrival of an ambitious careerist is not a matter for great concern, for they will be forced to leave upon completing their term. It should be added that such an individual is also not certain to be the devil incarnate. Far

worse would be a bully in power with no limits on his term in office -- where

7 Zhu Geilaing, The Late Memorial on Dispatching the Army, written circa 228 BC. 8 Translators note: I have avoided the oft-repeated translation of as the way of heaven in favor of

the authors preferred translation.

18

he would be asked to leave, but would refuse to do so. In order to avoid such a calamity, we must require all leaders to leave office once their term is complete, be they great leaders or not. The people must be suspicious of all politicians, and not blindly follow even the greatest of leaders. Good political institutions allow for the people to speak ill of their political leaders, even if these remarks are baseless. The ideal political system provides peaceful and institutionalized means for the removal of a scoundrel from office. Kongzi: This reminds me, when we Confucians speak of the Doctrine of the Mean, it also connotes the idea of pulling back before one reaches the extreme9. All things must be stopped at their appropriate moment without pushing to the extreme and failing to leave a margin for error. Laozi: Its true that you Confucians place an emphasis on maintaining an equilibrium so that all things remain in their proper place. This principle should also be applied to politics. However, we should not leave it up to the ruler as to whether or not they will fade into the background once they have successfully completed their responsibilities. Instead, if must be our political institutions which enforce this decision. While there may in fact be leaders who will voluntarily relinquish power, they are few and far between. A constitutional republic with enforced term limits on the ruler is the best embodiment of the Tao of Heaven. The West long ago understood this point, but we still have a muddled understanding about these ideas here in China. In fact, I suspect only a few would be able to coherently explain the splendor of republicanism and constitutional government. Kongzi: But shouldnt the leader seek perfection in his service of the people? To do otherwise would be to quit before the task is complete. Laozi: Of course, if the leader abandons his position before he has fulfilled his responsibility, this goes against the principle of the Tao of Heaven. Thus, when faced with a given task that one is required to fulfill, it must be done with great effort and seen through to its completion. In the same way that when one climbs

9Translators note: The full sentence is .

19

a mountain, one does not reach the summit only to remain there indefinitely. As to what should be considered as the successful completion of a given task, this depends upon the particular details and requires political acumen. As a result, the politicians we frequently see without any political wisdom or willingness to give up their office often cite the importance of their unfinished political projects as the reason they should not be subject to any limitations. As for the leader who claims to have reached perfection, I say that this is impossible. In fact, perfection is not even a good thing. Things that are said to be perfect only sound perfect. Absolute perfection indicates death, imperfection is the stuff of life, for life thrives on imperfection. Ideologies that strive to reach real perfection are closely followed by the stench of decaying bodies, for the true believer will kill to reach his idea of perfection. Kongzi: I understand your logic, but Im still slightly confused. Isnt it the case that as a leader becomes even greater, he becomes more perfect, and thus brings about better outcomes? Are you really saying that the benefits of a great leader dont redound to the people? Laozi: No, my opinion is precisely the opposite from yours. The best political leader is one of average abilities. When such an individual is in office, anyone can spot his errors, and no one will mistake him for the sun.10 The power of a nation should not be viewed in any way as being mysterious or mythical, and leaders should be viewed as public servants and mere mortals. It is only in countries that dont look to the sun that the people can be prosperous. If the people look upon their leader as the Sun in the Sky, as their Liberator, as the Great Helmsman, then the people will stop flourishing, they will stop thinking, and they will lose their direction. My view is that a great leader is not the good fortune of the people. If each country were to possess such a leader -- especially those leaders who consider themselves to be great -- this would most certainly be bad news. The reason some political leaders are inadequate stems from their attempt to play the part of a great leader.

10Translators Note: When the author speaks of the sun, this is a reference to the Cultural Revolution-era tendency to refer to Mao Zedong as the reddest sun.

20

Kongzi: There are some so-called great leaders who would indeed do bad things, even to the point where we Confucians wouldn't let them off the hook. That being said, throughout history, have you ever encountered a leader who satisfies your requirements? Laozi: Its true that historically speaking, its quite rare to find a political leader that I have admired. But if forced to answer, I suppose I would say the first president of the United States of America, George Washington. His greatness is to be found in his refusal to assume the mantle of greatness when it was his to hold forever. He was able to glimpse the Tao of Heaven, for when his power was at its peak, he chose to retire once [his] purpose [was] achieved.11 From that point on, the United States was to transform from a barren land into an incomparable super power. China, on the other hand, degenerated from one of the worlds great civilizations into a Third World country. One of the reasons for this is that in China, the sovereign was unwilling to relinquish power. The sun, as it were, was never willing to set. Regardless of his accomplishments (or lack thereof), the ruler would never voluntarily budge. Even when things had reached their worst, the ruler will still attempt to call the shots. The only remaining solutions are for the sovereign to die or for the people to pick up the sword. Here the Tao of Heaven is obscured beyond all recognition. Conversely, the United States has a republican system of government, with the Taoist idea of retire once your purpose is achieved having been enshrined since the countrys founding. This form of government demonstrates the efficacy of a system of term limits, and of compelling the leader to retire once his purpose has been achieved. The government and the people can only be considered in a state of tranquility when there are no struggles over the correct political line, when there is no risk of a coup detat, and when long-term stability spares the people from unrest. An ideal government is one that accords with the idea of the Tao of Heaven. A

government that conforms with the Tao of Heaven is a mighty government.

Throughout the history of the United States there have indeed been mediocre

11Translators note: This is adopted from James Legges 1891 translation.

21

and sub-par presidents, but there hasnt been one able to thwart the system of

term limits on office. In fact, if one is successful, they should retire, and if they

are not successful, then there is no merit in their further career advance. In order

to measure the success of a politician, we should use the measuring stick of

justice, and by this measure, I believe that most have been decidedly

unsuccessful, even criminal. We must remember that a president such as George

Washington is a rare commodity, and, so we must rely on institutions (especially

term limits) in order to force politicians to voluntarily exit the political stage. This

should occur regardless of his political merits. From this we can see that the Tao

of Heaven is a universal idea, and accommodates all varieties of individuals from

all different nations. To retire once ones purpose has been achieved is an idea

that transcends distinctions between the East and West.

More Power Is not Better Power, For it is Best to Stop Before One Goes Too Far. Power Held Reveals Ones Ferocity, But with Virtue, there is no End. Even if One Can Accumulate Riches, They Can Never Been Permanently Maintained. Those in Power Enjoy Lives of Leisure, Leading to their Demise. To Fulfill their Obligation, They Must, get out of the Way. For Only Then is One in Accord with the Tao of Heaven.

22

Dialogue 3: The Road to Happiness

Why is it the Responsibility of Government to Protect the Freedom of the

Individual to Pursue Happiness?

Laozi: Kongzi!12 Congratulations! Youre in the movies again.13

Kongzi: Please dont bring this up Im tired of being commercialized. Ive noticed that on the Internet, anything that can be said about me has been said. I cant get any peace. I really envy that youve managed to maintain distance between you and any artistic works. Laozi: Its not quite as good as you make it seem. After all, its not as if anyone has taken up my ideas of promoting governmental decentralization and

streamlining administrative functions, let alone wuwei my idea of inaction (). Kongzi: I know that you arent fond of art, and that you detest the five colors and the five notes14 It seems to me as if youre advocating that the masses only concern themselves with filling their stomachs and abandoning any higher material or spiritual aspirations. If one were to criticize you for advocating a government of the ignorant, how would you respond? Laozi: I know that many take my rejection of the five colors, five notes, and the five tastes to mean that I oppose the individuals pursuit of everyday enjoyment and the culture and arts. This is not, however, what I mean. As Ive said repeatedly, Im speaking to the ruler, not the ruled. The transformation and

12 Translators Note: Here the author uses a courtesy name for Confucius, Zhongni (). 13

Translators Note: The author is referring to the 2010 film Confucius (), starring the Hong Kong actor Chow Yun-fa in the titular role. 14 In chapter 12 of the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu writes Color's five hues from the eyes their sight will take; Music's five notes the ears as deaf can make. He concludes this chapter by writing Therefore the sage seeks to satisfy the craving of the belly, and not the insatiable longing of the eyes.

23

cultivation of the people is the mission of you Confucians, but it isnt mine. I respect the individuals freedom to choose his or her own way of living, be it simple or lavish. To once again reiterate, my political philosophy is limited to the regulation of the ruler, and not the ordinary people. I know that you like to

watch the 8 yi dance ( ), listen to Shao music ( ), enjoy delicately

prepared food, teach archery and equestrianism, and appreciate the six arts (). This is your own pursuit of self-cultivation, and I fully respect this choice.

Kongzi: We Confucians want to do more than merely educate the masses, we also want to speak to their leaders. Yet if the nation and its monarch fail to display a refined lifestyle, and instead seek out safety and comfort to the exclusion of the arts and entertainment, wont this hinder the development of artistic culture? Laozi: If the people are willing to live a simple and unadorned life, it must be

their voluntary choice and not the enforced will of the ruler. I resolutely oppose

those rulers who have developed a taste for luxury, just as I oppose the

government providing entertainment for the people. We have the problem of

opulent government buildings and extravagant official banquets because the

aristocracy is able to leverage the wealth of the people to satisfy their own

desires. When individuals lose their ability to work, or when the people

encounter a disaster, the government has a responsibility to step in and provide

assistance. But is it the responsibility of the government to ensure that everyone

is able put on an impressive wedding banquet? These forms of entertainment are

the responsibility of the people themselves, not the government. A virtuous

government must only concern itself with the basic requirements of the people,

not the pleasures of its citizens.

Kongzi: I agree with your position that the government has no obligation to provide fine foods for the people. That being said, are you really saying that there is no role for the government to enrich their cultural lives? Laozi: In the extreme, I believe that a government that follows the Tao of

24

Heaven should not support and patronize the arts or literature. The pursuit of entertainment and the refined life belong to the realm of civil society rather than government. Consider CCTVs New Year's Gala, which is widely derided by all. Fundamentally speaking, government was not created in order to provide entertainment for the people. A republican government which adheres to the Tao of Heaven will refrain from forming a national theatre troupe, a national theatre, or in any way nationalizing or dividing its actors. Furthermore, a governments task is not to grab hold of revolution nor to promote manufacturing, let alone to promote the arts. Both manufacturing and the arts are to remain within the realm of the people themselves. If a government is needed to help prop up the arts, this proves that the freedom to pursue happiness is extremely constricted. The duty of government is to create the proper social conditions and institutional guarantees. In a society such as this, individuals can peacefully coexist, freely discover and realize their potential, and pursue their own enjoyment and happiness. If they do so without violating the law and without infringing upon the happiness of others, a government has no authority to impede them. Kongzi: You speak of happiness, which to me is something that is unique to humanity, and is the pursuit of that which transcends basic necessities such as food and shelter. Because happiness is so important, I believe that a government must play an important role in ensuring it. Wouldnt it be great if the government could mimic a delivery company in bringing happiness to each family and every house? This would be a truly benevolent government, and this society would be

the Great Unity () that I yearn for. Laozi: I agree with your prior statement that the happiness of the individual is connected to government, but I cannot agree with your latter argument that the government must therefore help provide happiness. This is something we must ask of the Way of Heaven and God, not government, which is formed by mere mortals and thus is neither all-knowing, all-capable, nor all-benevolent. If the happiness of government officials cannot be assured, how are they to provide for your happiness? Whereas you have some ability to assure your own happiness, when it comes to insight into, and the ability to satisfy individual happiness, the government and its officials are incompetent. A ruler is unable to peer into the

25

depths of an individuals mind and discover their understanding of happiness, and thus the ruler is unable to realize happiness on the individuals behalf. Instead what they typically do is to immorally abuse public power to satisfy their own idea of happiness.

There is a great difference between happiness and the freedom to pursue happiness. The former is the feeling of self-satisfaction towards ones achievements, while the essence of the freedom to pursue happiness is liberty, which has no direct connection with the specific content of happiness. The unscrupulous ruler intentionally obscures the two. The ruler can thus both infringe on the freedom to pursue happiness whilst at the same time proclaiming that it is the happiness of the subject that they are seeking. The result is that the subjects lose their freedom and gain only hardships. Humanity created governments in order to protect the right to pursue happiness and not for the purpose of supplying happiness. The right to pursue happiness belongs to each individual, not the government. This is a self-evident, inalienable, and unimpeachable natural right. In the US Declaration of Independence, the pursuit of happiness is placed among the three basic freedoms, as is its justification.

Kongzi: If happiness is so important, how is it that it is unrelated to a governments obligations? Laozi: You have spoken correctly, in that happiness is vitally important to each individual, and thus we must not allow political power to meddle in these affairs. The importance of happiness stems from its centrality to all human pursuits. In my opinion, happiness is the ultimate goal in life, and it forms the backdrop for the pursuit of wealth, fame, honor, friendship, and faith. All other goals are instrumental, while happiness is an end in itself, surpassing all other pursuits.

Kongzi: Is there any type of common happiness that we can all pursue together? If such common happiness exists, this must be the most be the greatest form of

happiness in all the world (). For example, if everyone strives for a global

Great Unity (), doesnt this redound to both the individual and society? Laozi: This collectivist idea of happiness calls for all members of society to

26

abandon their own individual pursuit of happiness and to struggle for the collective good. This idea of a common happiness sounds beautiful, but in fact it is quite dangerous. I remember someone who once said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Dictatorships often wear the mask of the common happiness while in reality they seek their own dictatorial ends. One must be weary of those rulers who seek to undertake the pursuit of your happiness, for if they do so on your behalf, what work is there left for you to do? Depriving you of the freedom to pursue happiness whilst claiming to pursue it on your behalf is one of the most oft used tricks by the unscrupulous ruler. Subjects are only permitted to pursue the goals set by the ruler, which in turn are imposed upon the whole of society and said to be for the common good. In my opinion, the foundation of happiness is individualism. Happiness is something we all want, but each of us requires a different type of happiness. The goals we have as individuals are unique, and as a result, individual happiness is unique. The time we have on this earth is spent pursuing our own desired happiness, which has its own mysteries stemming from its highly personalized nature. Furthermore, happiness as experienced by each individual is exclusive to him or herself, and we would expect two individuals to share the same exact idea of happiness only under the most extreme coincidences.

If all people of this world were to share a common nation of happiness, this would obviate the idea of individual happiness. But even in a world where the

idea of the Great Harmony () has been realized, individuals would still need to find a new idea of happiness to pursue. As long as you find a goal in life and pursue it with all of your energy, you will be able to live happily. You, Confucius, have lived a life that is a typical example of the individualistic concept of happiness. You may feel as though serving the aristocracy is a blessing, but if the aristocracy were to impose their concept of happiness upon you, you would never be happy, nor able to produce all the brilliant achievements in your life.

Kongzi: According to what youve just said, even my own idea of happiness is also individualistic? Indeed, it is. If we all had the same notion of happiness, I

would have no need to travel to all corners of this land () propagating my ideas. Yes, my philosophy of happiness is unique. I advocate both being

27

content with poverty while striving for virtue () while also supporting

the a rich man who loves propriety15 (). That being said, Riches and honors acquired by unrighteousness, are to me as a floating cloud."16 The highest pursuit in my life has been that of seeking out the Tao of Heaven. The same as

you, I seek the Way (), not material comforts; I am anxious lest I should not get truth; I am not anxious lest poverty should come upon me.17 One has not lived in vain if he dies after he is told of the Way. These are the words I hold dear to my heart. Laozi: I greatly admire your spirit in seeking out the Way, and I also support your idea of happiness. I believe that todays investigation of happiness as it relates to political philosophy is very important, as it touches upon the questions of what is happiness? How do we realize happiness? What is the connection between government and happiness? From the past to the future, every government was built upon a certain specific political science of happiness. Unfortunately, while there are many who care about their own happiness, there are relatively few who show concern for the larger issue. Kongzi: Ive spent a great deal of time thinking about happiness, but comparatively little thinking about the political philosophy of happiness. Can you speak some more on the topic? Laozi: Put simply, my basic view on the political philosophy of happiness is this: happiness has moral attributes, as well as its own moral core. It is only when happiness conforms to moral behavior that true happiness can said to have been achieved. Happiness belongs to the realm of the private individual, and thus has nothing to do with a government. The power of a State must be confined to the public realm, and its obligation is to protect and refrain from interfering in the civil liberties and private actions of the citizen. It is only with freedom that happiness is possible. Government must act to protect the freedom to pursue happiness, not happiness itself. Again, to define and pursue happiness is the right

15This phrase comes from James Legges translation. 16

Ibid. 17 This quote is adapted from Legges translation.

28

of the individual, not government. Whether a nation itself is happy is not important, whats important is whether each individual has the freedom to pursue happiness. It is not those countries that esteem the public good that are happy, but rather those that allow maximum freedom for their citizens to pursue their own individual concept of happiness that are the most content.

You Aristocracy, Who Are Blinded by Resplendence will be Ignorant of Disaster and Unconcerned with the Plight of the People; You Aristocracy, Who Cause Deafness with your Extravagance Cannot Differentiate Good from Bad, and Do Not Accept the Will of the People; You Aristocracy, Who Deprive the Mouth of Taste With Your Gluttony, Cannot Tell Virtue from Evil, and Do Not Experience the Suffering of the People; You Aristocracy, Who Make Your Mind Mad with Your Wild Hunting Waste; Therefore the Wise Ruler Pursues Frugality, and Allows the People the Freedom to Achieve Their Own Conception of Happiness.

29

Dialogue 4: When Government Becomes a Stationary Bandit

Kongzi: I was recently browsing through a copy of Dream of the Red Chamber18 when I noticed the following from chapter 105: Mrs. Jia laughed, Even being this sick, Phoenix still has a silver tongue. No sooner had she said this when she heard Mrs. Xing burst in and blurt out Madame! Madame! Not Not good! Officials in brocades have overturned boxes and tipped over baskets, taking our belongings! Upon hearing the news Mrs. Jia stared blankly ahead. What type of bandit wears the uniform of an official? What type of bandit could cause even Mrs. Jia to be dumbfounded and Phoenix to faint? Considering the importance of the Jia family, what thief would have the gall to steal their possessions? Originally, it was those wearing brocades who carried Imperial edicts and have the power to inventory household possessions. Could Mrs. Xing not have known this in her naivet? How did she mistake bandits for government officials? Laozi: Likening an imperial court official to a bandit did not begin with Mrs.

Xing. For example there is the old phrase Those who seize possessions are

thieves, while those who seize power become lords. ().

When a bandit seizes a nation, it becomes a bandit nation, and the new rulers can

now wear the official government uniform while they unabashedly and nakedly

rob the country blind. If a bandit is able to seize power, they are able to enlarge

the scope of their seizure. The bandits thus become the rulers, and the country

becomes their own personal ATM.

Kongzi: There must have been a reason for the actions the court took against the Jia family. Cant we raise ourselves above Mrs. Xing and refrain from calling government officials thieves? Moreover, to call the court or the government a

18Dream of the Red Chamber () is a 17th century novel written by Cao Xueqin and widely considered on of Chinas greatest works of literature. It follows the fortunes of the aristocratic Jia family as they struggle to maintain their familys prestige in a changing China.

30

bandit as Mrs. Xing did is far too unreasonable.

Laozi: Have you ever read the following dialogue? Prince Wen of Lu Yang (

) had a plan to attack the Kingdom of Zheng (). Mozi ()19 heard of this news and tried to stop the plan, saying to Prince Wen: what if we allowed the large cities within Lu Yang to attack the small cities, and the large houses to attack the small houses, killing the people and looting their oxen, horses, dogs and pigs, cloth, silk, rice and valuables? What would you do in reaction to it? Prince Wen said: The people within the boundaries of Lu Yang are all my subjects. Whosoever has the gall to send troops into our land to plunder shall be ceaselessly hacked down. Mozi said: "Just as you possess all that is contained within the boundaries of your State, so too does Heaven possess all that is beneath it. If your army heads out to attack the Kingdom of Zheng, should you not expect Heaven to visit the same punishment upon you?" He continued: Suppose you attack your neighboring kingdoms, kill and injure its people and plunder their oxen, horses, crops, goods, valuables and then record your deeds on bamboo and silk, engrave them on metal and stone, and

carve them into bells and tripods () for the purpose of passing the tale down to later generations. You might say None can contend with me. Then another comes along to attack the houses of his neighbors, slaughtering their people, taking their dogs, their pigs, their food and crops, their clothing and furs. He too records his deeds on bamboo and silk, he carves his deeds into the tables and bowls in order to pass down his tale to future generations and he says None can contend with me. Is this permissible? Upon seeing that Prince Wen was basically in agreement, Mozi extended his analogy further. We humans often know trivial matters, but are ignorant of larger truths. For example, if an individual steals a dog or a pig, he will be considered lacking in benevolence. Yet if this same person were to seize control

19Mozi was philosopher from the early Warring States, and was an active opponent of Taoism and Confucianism.

31

of a nation or a city, he would be deemed righteous. This would be like seeing a small piece of white cloth and knowing that it was white, but when seeing a large piece of white cloth thinking it was black. Do you believe that white cloth can turn black just by becoming bigger? Does anything work this way? Theft is theft, no matter who the perpetrator is.

Kongzi: Let me ask you, do foreigners hold this opinion as well? Laozi: Human nature does not distinguish between foreign and local, and so issues relating to the experience and knowledge of governance will all be roughly the same. I admire St Augustine, whose perspective was similar to Mozis: when

the justice of The Way () is abandoned, what difference is there between a kingdom and a thieves den? What is a thieves den? Is it not a miniature kingdom? Both are comprised of individuals, and run according to the strictures of the leader, be he a king or a bandit. By mutual agreement and in accordance with mutually agreed upon rules, the bandits divide their spoils and booty. They occupy territory, build their residence on it, capture towns and cities, and subdue its civilians. And thus, a kingdom is born. Kongzi: You are, of course, correct. And if the imperial court becomes excessively avaricious, there is little to differentiate it from a bandit, and it must

be considered an oppressive government ().

Laozi: I would say that this is tyranny (). During his research of the Chinese warlord Feng Yuxiang, 20 the American economist Mancur Olson found that throughout most of human history, government has been not only the supreme ruler, but also the primary mechanism for plunder. As opposed to roving bandits, a government does its plundering in one place. According to this theory of a stationary bandit, when one bandit monopolizes the plunder in a given geographical area, that regions victims no longer need to fear the arrival of another bandit.

20Feng Yuxiang (1882-1948) was a warlord during the Republican era, and was strongly critical of Chiang Kai-shek.

32

In a world where roving bandits are the norm, there is no incentive to produce or to accumulate wealth. In order to create an environment that is conducive to plunder, stationary bandits often use their wealth and power to preserve social stability. Utilizing the power and the threat of the gun barrel, those roving bandits with foresight will anoint themselves emperor, monarch, or the Son of Heaven. They will organize the States ability to project violence and monopolize the power to plunder. They will protect the goose that laid the golden egg, and then keep it for themselves. This is in contrast with the roving bandit, who has no such incentive to protect the source of future production or wealth.

Kongzi: Even if its a roving bandit, isnt it better if the government provides

safety and well-being ()? Laozi: Im sure you know this fact: a government that has the power to give also has the power to take. And of course, it will usually take more than it gives, as a government must itself consume the largest portion of what is produced. A stationary bandit thus collects a protection fee in exchange for providing the people with safety. The 19th century French economist Frederic Bastiat called this legal plunder. All stationary bandits, no matter how rational at the onset, soon find that they cannot satisfy their appetite, nor can they control the ever-inflating number of personnel who work to keep them in power. When a hen can no longer lay eggs, she is destined for the kitchen, and likewise, the days are numbered for a stationary bandit that cannot produce. Throughout Chinese history, there have been many stationary bandits who were eventually overthrown by their roving counterparts because of this problem. Kongzi: This theory is quite interesting. What does the future portend for the stationary bandit? Laozi: The status quo of the stationary bandit held up until the past 200 to 300 years, when we discovered constitutional government and the rule of law as a means of preventing plunder by government.

33

Rulers, Do not think of oneself as anointed, and do not use fraud to govern your kingdom, And the people will be prosperous; Do not speak of virtue and propriety to win over the people, And the bonds of family will be stronger. Do not exploit the people or plunder their wealth And the world will be free from thieves. Yet even if you follow this stricture, it is still not enough. To govern a country well, you must: Reveal your true self, Embrace your nature, Control your desires, Abandon any false knowledge, And only then can you be free from worry and suffering!

34

Dialogue 5: Why must Political Institutions Comply with Human

Nature?

Kongzi: Ive always been prejudiced in my belief that people are more important than institutions. After all, institutions are the product of human design and require humans in order for them to operate. So while I agree that the question of institutions is important, it is no more important than the issue of people. Laozi: I now see that our difference of opinion begins right here. I, for one, do not believe that institutions are the result of human planning, and further, I do not believe that institutions require a human operator, including the operation of a ruler. In fact its the opposite. True institutions are a part of the Tao of Heaven: they are the institutionalization of the transcendent moral order. These institutions may be discovered by humans but they are operated in accordance with the prescribed preconditions of the Tao of Heaven. Bad institutions, on the other hand, are those designed by solely by humans. If the Tao of Heaven or the transcendent moral order is ignored when designing institutions, they are certain to be pseudo-institutions. The same can be said for unadulterated human action.

Kongzi: What is the connection between political institutions and human nature?

There is, of course, the first line of the Three Character Classic (), In the

Beginning, Humans Were Good () Laozi: The Tao of Heaven, human nature, and institutions are all interwoven. Political institutions that conform to the Tao of Heaven will respond to human nature in two ways. First, a political system must allow the individual to do that which he or she is incapable of doing alone. Second, a political system must not incite the more odious instincts of human nature, such as hatred, jealousy, violent tendencies, irrationality, and cruelty. Institutions that bring about inter-class enmity or that encourage ceaseless political infighting are the worst possible political institutions. They violate the Tao of Heaven, they violate human nature, and thus they are unworkable. Attempting to force their operation will only lead to severe or even disastrous consequences.

35

Kongzi: Can you unpack this last statement for me? Why are they unworkable? Laozi: Because in transgressing human nature, these institutions are transgressing upon what was given to humans by the Tao of Heaven. Institutions that violate human nature and the Tao of Heaven are like sprinting on ones tiptoes -- one simply cannot carry on for too long. When these institutions face a crisis, they are difficult to maintain, and thus they will collapse. If these institutions do not resort to violence, they might even fail within a single day owing to the opposition of the people. As a result, the price for maintaining such institutions is incalculable. If a social institution or political system can only be maintained through coercion, this is clearly contrary to the Tao of Heaven and a violation of human nature. The most extreme cases of such political systems are those that leave the ruler unrestrained and his or her political power free to expand within limit. Such a system will inevitably create tyrants.

Kongzi: Yes, of course, I too would oppose such a system. Aside from the above, would such a system bring about any additional negative results? Laozi: In order to compel society to accept these institutions and systems that violate the Tao of Heaven and human nature, dictators often use a didactic or coerced method in order to alter human nature or to ensure that the dictatorial system remains secure. Yet using didacticism or coercion to change human nature is a fools errand. Even if the rulers are able to incite the people through their preaching or the most oppressive laws, human nature still cannot be transformed. All that can be done is to expand the space for the more displeasing elements of human nature to take flight. The starting point for the construction of any political system or government must be compliance with human nature rather than the alteration of human nature. All that acts contrary to this is doomed to fail. I remember someone once said that a bad political system can make even the best men do wrong, while a good political system can turn the worst among us into a better person. A reasonable political system would not try to change the nature of self-interest, but would rather utilize this inalterable self-interest to its advantage. The spirit of self-interest can only be extinguished with death, and

36

attempts at suppressing it only result in its expansion, its deformation, and even the unleashing of its more dangerous capabilities. We Chinese long ago figured out an important truth: it is easier to move mountains and rivers than to alter

one's character (). If a social ideal or political system is created on the foundation of eradicating human self-interest -- and takes the realization of this ideal as a precondition -- there can be no mistake more serious, and there can be no system that does more to violate the Tao of Heaven and human nature. Kongzi: So what can be done to discover good political institutions? Are we able to find those institutions that are perfect in their compliance with human nature? Laozi: Humans are imperfect because human nature is imperfect, and thus we can never be made perfect. What this means is that imperfect beings can only create imperfect institutions. Only through the slow process of accumulating knowledge are we able as humans to discover a set of institutions that comport with our human nature. However, good political institutions can be studied, transmitted, copied, and altered by all of humanity. If political institutions are allowed to freely compete,

the survival of the fittest (), will lead to the best institutions rising above inferior ones. An environment that is open, that encourages innovation, and permits competition among political institutions will bring about better institutional outcomes. The path to discovering better political institutions and the path to discovering the principles of the Tao of Heaven are the same: allow individuals to freely explore, discover, and communicate. Even without such an environment of complete freedom, humans will not stop exploring for institutions that best comply with the Tao of Heaven and human nature. The difference is that the time it takes to find these institutions will be longer, and the price paid will be higher.

Kongzi: What youre saying is that finding good institutions is hard, and that implementing them is even harder, correct?

37

Laozi: If a political system is discovered, but not implemented, it is a political

system in name only. The greatest obstacle to the discovery and implementation

of a political system is the vested interests of the ruler. Such rulers attempt to

deify themselves, to ensure that their power is left unrestricted, and no matter

how much they might glorify themselves, they are all mere mortals who have the

same defects and limitations as the rest of us. The ups and downs that affect our

common humanity also affect them, sometimes even more so. What they lack,

however, is the common virtue of our universal humanity.

Kongzi: So what can be done to ensure that political institutions comport with human nature? Laozi: I believe the best possible method is to use relatively virtuous institutions to help bring forth the more virtuous side of our human nature and to guard against its darker side. Institutions cannot change human nature, but they can help channel self-interest towards the betterment of society. And so human nature must be submitted to when designing institutions rather than attempting to force a transformation in our basic nature. It is not important whether or not this nature is at its core good or bad, but rather we should focus on which direction these institutions should travel. If the self-interest of the individual can only be attained by attacking ones fellow man, then we are no better than wild beasts. But if self-interest is obtained by aiding our fellow man, then we are better than angels. The market economy works in the same way. If we want to create a flourishing society, we must rely on institutions that allow for individual self-interest to redound to the larger society. We can choose and transform institutions, but we cannot choose and transform our human nature. A good institution will prevent arbitrary evils, while a bad institution will be powerless to incentivize a bad individual to do good. Rational political systems adapt to human nature, as opposed to those that seek to compel human nature. Kongzi: And what political ideals are compatible with human nature? What is pragmatic, realistic, and humane?

38

Laozi: The arrangement of any political or legal institution must be premised on some kind assumption about human nature. What opinions one holds about human nature will directly affect how one judges the propriety of political institutions, and the method of creation institutions will affect how one views the legitimacy of these institutions. But in any political institution, human nature and the dignity of the individual must be inviolable, just as the value of the individual must not be disparaged, nor can their freedom be trampled. Political institutions that accord with the Tao of Heaven treat human nature with respect and prudence. They do not attempt to do surgery on human nature or conduct experiments on it. They recognize that it is not a malleable metal that can be shaped to ones purposes or a blank piece of paper on which anything can be drawn. Human nature contains both positives and negatives. Good institutions are built upon the idea of a balance of force: they promote human dignity and rationality while restraining human evil and depravity.

Rulers: Your Boasting Displays a Lack of Knowledge Your Sense of Infallibility Cannot be Seen Your Self-Flattery Displays a Lack of Accomplishments From the Perspective of Heaven, This Deception of Yourself and of Others Is like the Fat of a Leftover Meal Which We All Detest, As is Departing from the Path of the Learned and the Wise

39

Dialogue 6: Why is there no Virtue in Politics?

Kongzi: Your starting point for a discussion of politics is the Tao of Heaven, while for me it is the ethics of everyday life. Yet when all is said and done, just how important is politics? What is the position of politics in our everyday life and in the order of the Tao of Heaven that youve outlined? What must we do to accord politics its proper place? Laozi: Although there is more to life than politics, when I speak of the Tao of Heaven and morality, the focal point is nonetheless located in political matters. This is because at its essence, political issues are moral issues. That is to say, politics as well as morality unfold within the sphere of the Tao of Heaven. Ive adopted a position of instrumentalism towards the State and the government. Both the people and the State are subject to the moral laws of the Tao of Heaven, and likewise must serve the Taos intentions. Politics occupies a secondary position, and is not an end in itself, and is certainly not the ultimate goal. The nation and the government are merely necessary means to an end, and thus, we must never place too much hope in these two concepts. If our expectations are too high, our disappointment will likewise be high. Constituted as it is by mere mortals, human society will never achieve a state of perfection. Nor should one expect a nation, its government or its politicians to achieve this state of perfection either, no matter how great their effort. Just as individuals are limited in their power and function, so too are political power and government.

Kongzi: Yet it seems to me that your perspective is self-contradictory. On the one hand you say that you are primarily concerned with politics, and yet you go on to say that political matters must always be subservient to the Tao of Heaven. How do you square these two statements? Laozi: Self-contradiction? Im afraid not. The Tao of Heaven is supreme, yet its implementation does not occur in a vacuum. Rather, it is implemented in every specific domain of human life, and in every specific problem found therein. There is no one individual who can observe all aspects of human existence. For me, Ive chosen to focus on the political realm, and on how the Tao of Heaven

40

comes to be implemented in public affairs. As a result, my focus is not dedicated solely to political matters, but rather begins and ends with the Tao of Heaven. How is this self-contradictory?

Kongzi: Why can we not treat government as if it were a type of virtue and the State as if it were the collective ideal of all humanity? For example, we could see

politics as a means of realizing the Great Unity ().What could be better than a nation and a government that leads all of the people towards a common goal and assists them in pursuing a shared dream, a golden age, and the Great Unity of the planet? Laozi: No! No! No! Anything that can leverage power can never be considered a virtue. This is because power must always be a threat to freedom, life, property and human dignity. What differs between different systems of government is not this basic fact, but rather the degree to which the threat occurs. The State is, I believe, not something that can pursue virtue, nor is it a tool for realizing common goals or lofty aspirations; it is a tool that uses evil to control evil. And so the less we use the force of government the better. The State must absolutely refrain from willingly looking for dragons to slay. Id even go so far as to say that the greatest possible disaster is to use political means or the machinery of government to pursue virtue. We must never place faith in the idea that government and the State can solve all human problems, and thus, the most effective way to reduce government coercion is to expand the autonomy of society.

Politics is not supreme, and certainly not greater than the individual or society. The role of politics to provide the minimum political conditions that can ensure the maximum amount of personal freedom. It is merely a human practice that is highly circumscribed in both function and range, and as it must never be used to pursue virtue, it must be thought of as the art of avoiding the greater evil. It is not the art of the most perfect, but the art of the possible; it is not about the art of the Quixotic fantasy, but about the art of building fortifications against. It is, in short, the art of the second best. I believe in a politics that is passive, and a politics of passivity has no need to indicate the path to prosperity to members of society. Nor must politics entice the people away from, or compel them to

41

deviate from, those activities or undertakings that they themselves choose. That is to say, the State must have no mission or undertaking aside from the missions and undertakings of its citizens.

Kongzi: And why must the State not have its own mission or its own cause? Laozi: There is no problem with a citizen or a company having its own mission, but a State must not. According to the perspective of active politics, because the State is responsible for pursuing perfection and virtue, it is placed atop all else, and thus weve seen throughout history many examples of the evil omnipotent State.

This type of proactive politics emphasizes the abilities of the State over its institutional restrictions. It emphasizes the coercive powers of the State over its legitimacy. It emphasizes the wealth- extractive ability of the State more than it does the ability for civilian oversight of the wealth distribution. According to this perspective, it is not individual zeal and the pioneering spirit that matter, but rather it is the demands of the State that dominate. In the economic realm, it is held that the State sits atop all social life and it is the State that is responsible for economic development, not the private sector or private individuals.

On this issue of the States capability, the positive political outlook has repeatedly shown a rationalist, and even a romantic perspective: if we invest the State with enough ability, if the individual transfers his or her rights and freedoms to the State, if all subjects walk in unity with the State, if all actions take heed of the States wishes, if local governments take direct orders from the central government, if all of these are done, then there is nothing the State cant do, including the transformation of our world into heaven.

Kongzi: My political outlook is very close to what youve outlined above. What would a politics of inactivity and passivity look like? Laozi: The politics of passivity holds that because the State has no mission to pursue perfection or in any other way pursue its own ends, there is no need for its powers and abilities to be expanded. Power, after all, is a dangerous thing, and

42

thus we must institute checks and balances against it, and use a constitution and custom to circumscribe it. Political power must be dispersed, for the greater its concentration, the more corrupt the politics. The unification of power inevitably leads to corruption and decline. Politics is a specific and limited activity that requires the economic and efficient use of the government's powers in a restricted range of endeavors. The function of government is to enforce the rules of the game, just as the host of a debate is there to ensure the rules, not to participate in the debate. These rules, as constituted by the Constitution and the law, are there to prevent the abuse of power. These rules guarantee the freedom of the individual, and it is this freedom in turn allows the individual to choose the appropriate means for choosing their preferred way of life. The politics of passivity recognizes that the line between good and evil is not always clear-cut. Nor does the passive position speak lightly of great goods and great evils, or of the world as engulfed in a great struggle between good and evil. The government and the State are not tasked with chasing the illusory idea of perfection, or of the greatest happiness, or of a paradise on earth. Rather, they must strive to tamp down on the evils that exist in this world. In the realm of governing human affairs, evil plays a more fundamental role than does good, for it is in the clear delineation of evil that the pursuit of good has located its prerequisite. If one does not know what evil is, how can one even speak of pursuing virtue? And thus, preventing evil is more moral than pursuing virtue. By treating "perfection" as a political ideal that can feasibly be obtained, a situation will arise where the ends (perfection) justify the means, or even where the ends completely absolve any evil done along the way. Even if some form of perfection is to be achieved, we should not compel people today to sacrifice themselves for tomorrow. Whats more, we cannot say whether perfection is in fact perfect or if it is merely a question mark. While some may hope for the creation of heaven on earth, they should prepare for hell on earth, as this is the inevitable outcome. Political perfection, regardless of how benevolent its ends, will fail to bring about happiness. Indeed, what it will create is suffering under a dictatorial government. Humanity is incapable of both discovering and realizing perfection. Indeed, using one standard of perfection to deny the diversity of human values would certainly create a system of moral absolutism in which all other competing political values will be banned under a closed political

43

dictatorship. And so, as understood by the politics of passivity, political perfection is absurd in theory and dangerous in practice.

Kongzi: Im completely confused. Why cant a State, a government, or a ruler pursue perfection? Laozi: If there is to be an official idea of perfection, it will not brook any opposition, and thus must be singular in its conception. This type of singularity will clash with the multivariate nature of the peoples ideals. If we want to respect the freedom of the people, the government must rid itself of any notion of pursuing an ideal, allowing instead for pursuit of perfection by the individual and voluntary organizations. That there is no official conception of perfection does not mean that there are not various private notions of perfection, and even if they cannot all be realized, at least some of them can. A society in which not all of the dreams of the people can become a reality is still a society in which many of them can. Although this course of action will not bring about utopia, it will at least refrain from adopting more wicked means. Based on this understanding of human nature and the Tao of Heaven, the government must be strong enough to complete those tasks that it must, but not so strong as to endanger the freedom of the individual. I support the idea of the State and the government must be invested with power, but I also believe that this power must be strictly limited. Kongzi: If the State and the government are denied the pursuit of an ideal, are they at least allowed to pursue a goal? Laozi: If the State must possess a goal, I believe it is the same goal they should

have had at the time of their creation. The State and the government are not

ends in themselves, and according to the Tao of Heaven, their goal is to comply

with the Tao of Heaven, protect the freedom of the people, their lives, and their

property. Any government or nation that violates this duty must be considered

tyrannical.

Kongzi: Then how are we to rationally demarcate the proper scope of

government action?

44

Laozi: It is not as hard as it seems. Let us begin with the division between public and private. The affairs of humanity can be classified into two completely

separate spheres of activity: private () and public (). Traditionally, the difference between the public sphere and the private sphere has been the dividing line between the State and society. Political activity occurs in the public sphere, and should only be allowed within a strictly limited range of State and governmental activity. The private sphere connotes the domain in which the citizen reigns. Here, they can decide for themselves which brand of cigarette to smoke and to whom they wish to get married. By their very nature, humans are

private (), and unlike Aristotles political animal, the focal point of human activity is the private sphere. To admit the existence of the private sphere is to admit the existence of human freedom. This private life is a sphere of freedom and individual responsibility that is formed within a space of autonomous control. Its existence not only means that the individual is free to pursue his or her own legitimate interests in a protected space, but also to has the freedom to cultivate the virtues that help provide these most basic of conditions. The value of the public sphere is that it can serve the interests of the people. The public interest is either a tool for enriching a few, or it is a tool in harmony with private interests. The public interest can be maintained only when it is unified with the interests of the private sphere. Where the private sector is capable of completing a task, the government should refrain from intervention. Where the private sector is able to complete a task at a lower cost than the government, it should be left free to do so. In those instances where the government is the only institution capable of completing a task, the private sector should be there to monitor it. The primary function of government is to protect individual freedom from the encroachment of other individuals, groups, or governments - and to punish those who violate said freedoms. It must also uphold justice, order, and a minimum consensus on morality. Government also has a responsibility to preserve a stable economic order. Only when these conditions are assured can the individual pursue their own dreams. When the power of the State is expanded and it begins to infringe upon what are purely private matters, tyranny is the result. Kongzi: We Confucians have consistently advocated that the private must be subservient to the public, yet I see that this position is mistaken: it is the public

45

that must be subservient to the private. Id still like to ask another question: given that the idea of political passivity advocates a nation without an ideal, and a politics that doesnt pursue perfection, is there a basis for this in the Tao of Heaven? Of course there is. The Tao of Heaven is by its nature passive and inactive. The

Taoist idea of wu wei () holds that while the Tao is inactive, the individual is not. Thus, a moral system of government adopts the quietness of wu wei and refuses to meddle in the private affairs of the people. Furthermore, the Tao of Heaven calls for the ruler to refrain from seizing, oppressing, or otherwise attempting to thwart the private aspirations of the people. I make a special effort to emphasize political passivity, as we must have a nation and government that adopts the idea of wu wei. The legal idea that no action shall be taken by a court unless someone brings a suit falls squarely within the Tao of Heaven. Image a world in which judges dressed in their wigs were to stand on the street, apprehending all past, present, and future lawbreakers. In such a situation, the people would not be able to live but one day.

Extravagance is the root of frivolity, Stillness has mastery over agitation. Thus, during the travels of the Ruler He Will not Stray From His Baggage Train. Even While Possessing Vast Riches, They Do Not Entice Him. As the Ruler of a Mighty Kingdom, How Can the Tao of Heaven be Treated as a Trifle? If the Ruler is Imprudent, the Root will be Lost; And Restlessness will Prevail. If Capricious, the Ability to Govern will be Lost. Agitation Will Thwart the Ability to Contemplate the Fundamental Questions.

46

Dialogue 7: The Tao of War

Kongzi: The capture and killing of Osama bin Laden by the US military has dominated the news as of late, and Im quite interested in how they caught him. What I find particularly interesting is that the US military gave Bin Laden a proper funeral burial, even doing so according to the tenets of Bin Ladens faith. Contrast this with Chinese tradition, where if one captures their enemy, they might hope to cut them into 10,000 pieces or even to dig up their corpse to have it flogged. Events such as these took place even as late as the Cultural Revolution. I myself have been on the receiving end of this type of treatment through our history. How I have come to provoke such hatred I do not know. You, however, are a man of prudence, and in your peripatetic wandering, were spared any humiliation that could come after death. But let us look at the Americans, who not only refrained from humiliating Bin Laden, but also cleaned and prepared his body for burial in the Arabian Sea. -This reminds me of one of your important, yet largely forgotten, sayings He who has killed multitudes of men should weep for them with the bitterest grief; and the victor in battle has his place (rightly) according to those rites 21 . While I do not think that the Americans were inspired by your writings, I still want to know how you possessed such foresight. Laozi: This is not foresight, but rather I have apprehended what the Tao of Heaven has told me, whereas the majority of us do not bother to listen. Even if one is the victor, he should afford the fallen their proper burial rites, regardless of whether they fought for the enemy or not. In the West, similar sentiments, beginning with the famous funeral oration of Pericles in Ancient Greece on through to Lincolns Gettysburg Address, have shown brightly through the ages. However, I am the first in Chinese history to give prominence to treating a battle victory as if it were a funeral. Yet, China has yet to leave future generations with an eloquent funeral speech, especially to those unknown soldiers who died in battle. What we have instead are those calls for maximizing humiliation upon ones vanquished opponents, as you previously mentioned. The more war and

21James Legge, 1895

47

victory are not properly treated, the more we will suffer at its hands. Im afraid that no other country can be mentioned in the same sentence when it comes to the historical suffering from war and violence. Kongzi: Indeed, China is precisely as you have described: a country that is permeated with hostility. I would still like to know, however, why battle victories should be treated as funerals? Laozi: Simply put, it is because of the following several reasons. First, it is decided by the nature of war and military arms. Second, we are all the creations of the Tao of Heaven, including our enemies and our friends, and their remains must not be treated with disrespect. Third, treating those fallen in battle to funeral rites helps to eliminate rather than incite hatred. The fourth reason is that it can aid soldiers and even the rest of the nation to cast off the instinct and impulse for violence and return to rationality and humanity. Thus, language that arouses our baser and more violent instincts, such as the call to rage against a

common enemy (), is completely objectionable.

Kongzi: I understand and completely agree with points 2 and 3, but can you further explicate the first point? Laozi: The military has a very particular characteristic: when it was created and provided weaponry, its goal is not to go hunting or to chop wood, but rather to exter

Tao of Liberty : Dialogue in Heaven between Laozi and Kongzi

Documents

Transcript of Tao of Liberty : Dialogue in Heaven between Laozi and Kongzi