Libertarian Lesson From the Tao (te Ching)

Incrimsonias

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
76
If you want to be a great leader, you must learn to follow the Tao. Stop trying to control. Let go of fixed plans and concepts, and the world will govern itself. The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be. The more weapons you have, the less secure people will be. The more subsidies you have, the less self-reliant people will be. Therefore the Master says: I let go of the law, and people become honest. I let go of economics, and people become prosperous. I let go of religion, and people become serene. I let go of all desire for the common good, and the good becomes common as grass.

- Tao Te Ching (Mitchell translation), Chapter 57
 
Absolute passivity is patently useless, unless you happen to be exploiting its adherents...
 
A leader is best when people barely know that he exists,
Less good when they obey and acclaim him,
Worse when they fear and despise him.

Fail to honor people and they fail to honor you.
But of a good leader, when his work is done; his aim fulfilled, they
will all say:

" We did it ourselves. "

(Lao-Tzu) 17th verse
 
Thanks for sharing. The Tao is supposedly one of the earliest libertarian documents. I will have to give it a read when I have more time. :)

still one of the best! There are a TON of different translations though. And they can seriously change how you interpret it.
 
Found a good article by Mr. Rothbard. THought you guys would be interested, in case you haven't read it ;)

"The first libertarian intellectual was Lao-tzu, the founder of Taoism. Little is known about his life, but apparently he was a personal acquaintance of Confucius in the late sixth century BC and like the latter came from the state of Sung and was descended from the lower aristocracy of the Yin dynasty. ... Unlike the notable apologist for the rule of philosopher-bureaucrats, however, Lao-tzu developed a radical libertarian creed. For Lao-tzu the individual and his happiness was the key unit and goal of society. If social institutions hampered the individual's flowering and his happiness, then those institutions should be reduced or abolished altogether. To the individualist Lao-tzu, government, with its "laws and regulations more numerous than the hairs of an ox," was a vicious oppressor of the individual, and "more to be feared than fierce tigers."

Government, in sum, must be limited to the smallest possible minimum; "inaction" was the proper function of government, since only inaction can permit the individual to flourish and achieve happiness. Any intervention by government, Lao-tzu declared, would be counterproductive, and would lead to confusion and turmoil. After referring to the common experience of mankind with government, Lao-tzu came to this incisive conclusion: "The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished…. The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be."

The wisest course, then, is to keep the government simple and for it to take no action, for then the world "stabilizes itself." As Lao-tzu put it, "Therefore the Sage says: I take no action yet the people transform themselves, I favor quiescence and the people right themselves, I take no action and the people enrich themselves…."

Lao-tzu arrived at his challenging and radical new insights in a world dominated by the power of Oriental despotism. What strategy to pursue for social change? It surely was unthinkable for Lao-tzu, with no available historical or contemporary example of libertarian social change, to set forth any optimistic strategy, let alone contemplate forming a mass movement to overthrow the State. And so Lao-tzu took the only strategic way out that seemed open to him, counseling the familiar Taoist path of withdrawal from society and the world, of retreat and inner contemplation."

Whole article:
http://mises.org/daily/1967
 
I'm not familiar with the Taoist principle of absolute passivity. Can you explain this further?

actually the concept would be totally absurd to a taoist. They disregard absolutes; everything is an integration/synthesis of polarities
 
I'm not familiar with the Taoist principle of absolute passivity. Can you explain this further?

I think this paragraph from the previous post sums it up;
Lao-tzu arrived at his challenging and radical new insights in a world dominated by the power of Oriental despotism. What strategy to pursue for social change? It surely was unthinkable for Lao-tzu, with no available historical or contemporary example of libertarian social change, to set forth any optimistic strategy, let alone contemplate forming a mass movement to overthrow the State. And so Lao-tzu took the only strategic way out that seemed open to him, counseling the familiar Taoist path of withdrawal from society and the world, of retreat and inner contemplation."
 
I think it is false to claim it is useless.

What better way to remove unjust power, than to not recognize it?

From the article
Don't sully me, I would rather roam and idle about in a muddy ditch, at my own amusement, than to be put under the restraints that the ruler would impose. I will never take any official service, and thereby I will satisfy my own purposes.
 
While I am at heart a Christian, I have tremendous respect and admiration for the Tao. Like the Bible, it is my understanding that some of the latter aspects of the Tao were not in fact from Lao-tsu but were added by later authors. It seems that all religions have certain elements that were not spoken/written directly from the horse's mouth. I've read that like Jesus some historians even contest the actual life of LaoTsu... I think it is always important to respect that all of our belief systems should be tested against reason and held up against the highest potential state of consciousness of our individual conscience prior to accepting anything as truth.
 
While I am at heart a Christian, I have tremendous respect and admiration for the Tao. Like the Bible, it is my understanding that some of the latter aspects of the Tao were not in fact from Lao-tsu but were added by later authors. It seems that all religions have certain elements that were not spoken/written directly from the horse's mouth. I've read that like Jesus some historians even contest the actual life of LaoTsu... I think it is always important to respect that all of our belief systems should be tested against reason and held up against the highest potential state of consciousness of our individual conscience prior to accepting anything as truth.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who actually "worshipped" Lao Tzu. Like Ron Paul, it's about the ideas, not the man. There is nothing "religious" about The Tao. It's is not a belief structure, and it has nothing to do with the afterlife.
 
The more I read about Taoism, the more I dig it. Sure wish it had been more influential in the course of Eastern religion and politics than Confucianism has been.
 
I think it is false to claim it is useless.

What better way to remove unjust power, than to not recognize it?

From the article
I got caught up in semantics. The passivity taught by Taoist philosophy shouldn't carry a negative connotation. I feel like most people who don't understand (or like) the philosophy are quick to see it as lazy or unguarded rather than proactive as exemplified in your second quotation.
 
Last edited:
I got caught up in semantics. The passivity taught by Taoist philosophy shouldn't carry a negative connotation. I feel like most people who don't understand (or like) the philosophy are quick to see it as lazy or unguarded rather than proactive as exemplified in your second quotation.

I equate it with the similar relationship between Austrian and Keynesian Economics. The Keynesian says, "So you would do nothing?!" The Austrian replies, "No! You don't see the unintended consequences!"

Unintended consequences being Unseen Action.

Taoist OBSERVE to learn how the world works. And in so doing, bring their own actions into concert with it, as opposed to always working against it. Observing is arduous and constant action! That's why a lot of people refuse to meditate! They don't have the chops.
 
If you want to be a great leader, you must learn to follow the Tao. Stop trying to control. Let go of fixed plans and concepts, and the world will govern itself. The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be. The more weapons you have, the less secure people will be. The more subsidies you have, the less self-reliant people will be. Therefore the Master says: I let go of the law, and people become honest. I let go of economics, and people become prosperous. I let go of religion, and people become serene. I let go of all desire for the common good, and the good becomes common as grass.

- Tao Te Ching (Mitchell translation), Chapter 57

I first read Te Tao Ching in 1967. I was attracted to it and read and studied it for many years. As my reasoning capabilities grew and I improved my intellectual habits, it became clear to me that the book, however pretty sounding and poetically pleasing the translation at hand might be, the author's actual meanings are lost among a small forest of possible interpretations. In many places the exposition strongly appears to praise the tyrant, labeling him the sage king for maintaining his people in a state of ignorance. This may or may not have been the author's intention; it is no longer possible to know precisely and for certain either way.

I would also warn against simplistic models of the world, as well as inappropriately implied metaphors and so forth. In an early chapter it reads "the greatest good is that of water, for it nourishes the ten thousand things yet asks nothing in return." The quote is from memory of one particular translation I have read. The passage may hold great emotional appear, yet if one attempts to determine the practical significance that it seems to imply, one it left with an empty bag. Human beings are not water. Our needs and desires appear to be a bit more complex in nature. Given that most of the work appears to be a treatise on how to live amongst other humans and how to govern them, I would call this particular passage a good example of author FAIL.

Another problem is that of translation. I keep wanting to attribute this to one Rabbi Cooperman, but I think I have it wrong... "Translation is betrayal". I cannot agree more strongly. Te Tao Ching is actually a rather good example of this because there are so many English translations. I have several including Whaley, Giles, and at least half a dozen others. In some cases putting two next to each other results in barely recognizable variants, the one from the other. Translation can be catastrophically destructive to meaning.

The lesson, then, is to be very careful with how you regard the messages you think are contained in written works, particularly where the style is a vague as it is in this case. And usually, the older the work - the more removed its life is from that of the reader - the more careful one must be due to loss of the various contexts in which a work has been written. Such contexts are essential to unlocking the actual and intended meaning of the sentences, vis-a-vis one's perception of what is meant which is derived from one's own set of contemporary contextual circumstances. This is especially so where an author was conveying nuances of meaning, which are more often than not lost in the mists of time and change. Be also aware that context means almost always means nearly everything in terms of understanding. Very few works are written at such a basic level of meaning that its full messages are carried forward through the ages intact. Another reason to be wary of written works. Be careful in what you accept as truth. IMO the wise man reinvents wheels for himself, declining to rely on the works of others as anything more than guides on his own journey of discovery. This is the only sound way of attaining real understanding, IMO, because every man's understanding of a given issue is likely to be somewhat different from that of every other.

Language and human experience and perception are devilishly difficult things to share even under the best of circumstances. Place two people together in a situation and you will likely get at least three different accounts and opinions of the events in question. Perception is very tricky stuff. Therefore, be very careful and circumspect when evaluating experience, particularly those through the eyes of others and most particularly when they are written and are of a relatively ancient vintage.
 
Back
Top