The Useless Tree

Taoism, Libertarianism and Markets

    The headquarters of libertarianism in the US, the Cato Institute, has discovered Taoism – or, at least, its vice-president, James A. Dorn has (hat tip, Western Confucian).  In a short article, he latches on to the obvious libertarian resonance in the Taoist notions of wu wei – which we can here translate as non-intervention – and small government.  And it’s true: there really are libertarian overtones in the Tao Te Ching.  I imagine Dorn would also be happy with Burton Watson’s introduction to the Chuang Tzu, in which the master translator suggests that that text can be summarized in one word: freedom.

     But, as I have argued before, there are also ways in which Taoism pushes against market-oriented libertarianism.  For example, take this passage from the Dorn piece:

Good government must be
in harmony with each person’s desire to prosper and to expand the range
of choice. By emphasizing the principle of non-intervention, Lao-tzu
recognized that when government leaves people alone, then, "without
being ordered to do so, people become harmonious by themselves." He
thus understood, at least implicitly, that central planning generates
social disorder by destroying economic freedom. When coercion trumps
consent as the chief organizing principle of society, the natural way
of the Tao and its virtue (Te) will be lost.

 I can agree with most of this, but that first line is deeply problematic.  Taoist harmony is most certainly not a matter of people’s desire to "prosper and to expand the range of choice."  Harmony (and for a Taoist that would not imply that absence of evil or difficulty, only their natural occurrence) emerges from the reduction of the range of choice.  Passage 80 of the Tao Te Ching presents an ascetic and simplistic utopia of sorts, based upon the rejection of mass conspicuous consumption.  But let’s put up an excerpt from passage 12 to rebut Dorn’s interpretation:

The five colors blind eyes.
The five tone deafen ears.
The five tastes blur tongues.
Fast horses and breathtaking hunts make minds wild and crazy.
Things rare and expensive make people lose their way.

 It’s all about limiting appetites and desires.  Less is more and all that.  And this differs from most contemporary forms of libertarianism, which emphasize freedom from institutionalized rules and regulations.  While Taoists would generally agree that such formal controls can create corruption and domination, they would also presume that the "harmony" that might emerge from greater political and social freedom requires a certain type of individual, one who is willing to relinquish desires and self-interests and expectations to follow Way in a simpler and even rather primitive life.  Modern libertarians, by contrast, place too much faith in self-interest.  Taoists would reject their embrace of Ann Rand, whose rational egoism is not in keeping with Way.

      And, while I’m at it, a second divergence of Taoism from Cato Institute libertarianism comes to mind:  a contemporary American Taoist would not defend the right to bear arms, the Second Amendment, because, after all:

Auspicious weapons are the tools of misfortune.
Things may not all despise such tools,
but a master of Way stays clear of them.

Tao Te Ching, passage 31.

    I imagine Mr. Dorn would part company with "Lao Tzu" on that issue…

Sam Crane Avatar

Published by

Sam Crane
I have moved The Useless Tree to WordPress. Hope this works!
Categories: ,

20 responses to “Taoism, Libertarianism and Markets”

  1. gukseon Avatar
    gukseon

    Very well stated. While libertarianism and the Daodejing do seem to agree about having a “limited government”, I think they disagree in their reasons as to why there should be such government. I also think there’s a huge difference between a Daoist view of “freedom” (i.e. freedom from convention, from concepts, from tyrannical desires, etc.) and libertarian “freedom” (i.e. freedom to buy whatever you like). I think a Daoist would say that libertarian freedom without freedom from the “five openings” is no kind of freedom at all.
    But I suppose it just goes to show that people will try to use Daoism (or Confucianism, or any other “Ancient Wisdom”) to justify their views, whether they’re in China or the U.S.!

    Like

    Reply
  2. chriswaugh_bj Avatar
    chriswaugh_bj

    Nah, not at all. There’s no Daoism in libertarianism. None at all. Daoism is closer to Anarchy, which is not to be confused with chaos. Anarchy is more like the sublimation of communism- as Marx said, “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need”. Take that to the ultimate level, in a society in which the state has ceased to exist because humans have evolved to that point where the coercion of the state is not needed to ensure all have an equal measure.
    I’m not equating Marx with Lao Zi or Communism or Anarchy with Daoism, I’m just saying that Lao Zi has more in common with Marx than he does with any libertarian and Daoism has more in common with Anarchy- and even with Communism- than it does with libertarianism.
    Libertarianism is, after all, just a pathetic attempt by rich gits to justify their selfishness and greed.

    Like

    Reply
  3. gukseon Avatar
    gukseon

    chriswaugh—-I agree with you that that there are some similarities between Daoism and Communism, but I cannot agree that there “no Daoism at all” in libertarianism. There are elements in both ideologies that could conceivably be thought of as “Daoistic”. There are also quite a few elements in both ideologies that are, I think, anti-Daoist.
    Laozi probably would have approved of an Anarchist state, but I personally don’t think he would have supported Marxist Communism as a route to getting there. The idea that “governing a large country is like frying a small fish” seems to fly directly in the face of a rigid, state-controlled society. Likewise, I don’t think Laozi would have approved of a violent uprising on the part of the proletariat. The very fact that the Daodejing is addressed to a ruler shows that Laozi took reform from the other way around—-speaking to the powerful, the (self-proclaimed) “elite”, rather than Marx’s bottom-up approach to reform.
    Finally, I think your statement about libertarianism is a sweeping generalization—-one might as well say that Communism is a populist sham intended to elevate dictators—-and doesn’t appreciate the variety of ideologies that can been classed as “libertarian”. Movements like Libertarian-Socialism, Left-Libertarianism, and Eco-Libertarianism are perhaps closer to the Daodejing’s image of the perfect society than either classical libertarianism or Marxism.

    Like

    Reply
  4. chriswaugh_bj Avatar
    chriswaugh_bj

    gukseon, the libertarians I have been exposed to are of the kind I describe in my first comment, hence my complete lack of respect for libertarianism. Obviously, there is more to that line of thought than I know about and I should stop being so lazy and learn. But thanks for the correction.
    I agree Lao Zi was not a Communist by any means, but I do think he has a fair bit in common with Communists, and by that I mean the Communist ideal of an ‘end-state’ of human society where the state has melted away because the people are naturally living good Communist lives seems kinda Daoist to me. Of course, the Communist method of getting to that end-state involves far too much action for Lao Zi to approve.
    That said, I find a lot of what the Dao De Jing has to say about governance really disturbing. Keeping the people’s bellies full and minds empty, for example.

    Like

    Reply
  5. The Western Confucian Avatar
    The Western Confucian

    I agree that Taoism is closest to anarchism, especially as expressed by Chuang Tzu. Marx did say the state would eventually wither away, but not until after the dictatorship of the proletariat, under which both Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu would have ended up in a gulag.
    Libertarianism in its purest form is called paleolibertarianism or anarcho-capitalism. Here’s an article by the school’s greatest American voice, the late Murray N. Rothbard–The Ancient Chinese Libertarian Tradition.

    Like

    Reply
  6. gukseon Avatar
    gukseon

    chriswaugh, re: “Keeping the people’s bellies full and minds empty”, I agree that does sound somewhat fascist, but I think there are two important contextual points that might make that seem less disturbing:
    1.) “Mind” here is (unless I’m mistaken) the word xixin (洗心). Xinxin is hard to translate into English because it means something like “heart” and something like “mind”. An accurate translation would be something like “heart-mind”, but most translators have opted for one or the other. Hence some translators have opted for “Emptying the heart (of desire) and filling the belly with food” (Wu). I think perhaps “emtpying the heart” has better connotations in English; it seems more along the lines of what Proff. Crane was getting at (i.e. “limiting appetites and desires”) rather than a totalitarian government clamping down on dissenters.
    2.) In the Daoist worldview, “Land” or “the State” is considered a macrocosm of the human being (or conversely that the human being is a microcosm of the land, state, etc.). Hence to some degree in Daoist scriptures injunctions about governing the state are also about self-cultivation practice. Hence “empty the mind, fill the belly” also refers to favoring, refining, and cultivating intuition over discursive reaon. More generally it could also refer to taking care of essential needs rather than superficial wants.

    Like

    Reply
  7. Sam Avatar
    Sam

    Wow, great conversation.
    Let me jump in on the “empty [heart] minds, fill bellies” discussion. While gukeson makes a good point about possible alternate translations (something we should always keep in mind for much of ancient Chinese philosophy), I think we can also engage this passage from the point of view of “mind.” “Emptying mind” here might suggest “give up learning” – i.e. do not rely upon humanly-created formal education – which the Tao Te Ching mentions in other passages. This might mean that rulers should not ply the people with complex, overblown plans for social or economic transformation, they should not rely upon that sort of “learning,” but simply attend to the most basic needs (food, shelter, etc.) for all. I add the “for all” because I think there is a sense of outrage in the TTJ toward the exploitation of the common people by rapacious rulers.
    But that’s just one possible way of looking at it…

    Like

    Reply
  8. chriswaugh_bj Avatar
    chriswaugh_bj

    Thank you all, I stand very thoroughly corrected, and I am encouraged to continue my exploration of Daoism.

    Like

    Reply
  9. Revolution Solution Avatar
    Revolution Solution

    “I can agree with most of this, but that first line is deeply problematic. Taoist harmony is most certainly not a matter of people’s desire to “prosper and to expand the range of choice.” Harmony (and for a Taoist that would not imply that absence of evil or difficulty, only their natural occurrence) emerges from the reduction of the range of choice.”
    The reduction you refer to is only at the individual level; the principle of living a simple life. It is not by a reduction of the range of choices from without that this is accomplished, but by deciding not to imbibe of those choices which would blind the eyes and deafen the ears. In order for an individual to be able to choose to live a simple life he must also have the freedom to choose from an infinite variety of other options; otherwise he has not CHOSEN the simple life, but merely had it foisted on him. (It could well be argued that the “evils” of interference emanating from government are NOT “natural”). If one is not free to CHOOSE the Way, then one cannot LIVE the Way.

    “And, while I’m at it, a second divergence of Taoism from Cato Institute libertarianism comes to mind: a contemporary American Taoist would not defend the right to bear arms, the Second Amendment, because, after all:
    Auspicious weapons are the tools of misfortune.
    Things may not all despise such tools,
    but a master of Way stays clear of them.
    Tao Te Ching, passage 31.”
    You should be more careful about taking things out of context. The entire passage shows that the use of weaponry (force) is sometimes “unavoidable”, but that the use of them must be done without joy; with calm restraint.
    If the use of force is sometimes unavoidable, then I would say that the Second Amendment is in perfect keeping with the Way. It would be rather difficult to use effective force when it is of the “direst necessity” if deprived of the means to most quickly and effectively do so.
    Here’s a translation in full (not sure which translation you used)
    “Weapons are the tools of violence;
    all decent men detest them.
    Weapons are the tools of fear;
    a decent man will avoid them
    except in the direst necessity
    and, if compelled, will use them
    only with the utmost restraint.
    Peace is his highest value.
    If the peace has been shattered,
    how can he be content?
    His enemies are not demons,
    but human beings like himself.
    He doesn’t wish them personal harm.
    Nor does he rejoice in victory.
    How could he rejoice in victory
    and delight in the slaughter of men?
    He enters a battle gravely,
    with sorrow and with great compassion,
    as if he were attending a funeral.”

    Like

    Reply
  10. neil Avatar
    neil

    Laozi neither endorses limiting desires nor does he absolutely oppose weapons. The first verses are about how sense experience obscures consciousness as such (pure consciousness), and the second is about “a master”, not just any Taoist. Intellectually trying to follow the Daodejing is not the Dao. There are certain experiences being pointed to here, and those are not reflected in the analysis above.

    Like

    Reply
  11. robert Avatar
    robert

    I used to like the notion of libretarianism. But i have found 2 major problems with it. The first problem is which freedoms do you want to expend political capitol to make more liberalized? Most libretarians are far too willing to expend their political capitol for tax cuts, deregulation, and gun rights while doing nothing for gay rights, freedom of choice, and other socially liberal stances.
    The second thing is that before you do liberalize certain things you must make sure that society can handle those changes. If you do deregulate you must make sure that what you are deregulating can be handled by the market. Otherwise, corruption and robbery can take over as seems to be the case. Likewise, if you cut taxes, you have to make sure that you can afford to do so first or risk running up a huge dedt.
    I have found libretarianism to be a fully disfunctional political movement.

    Like

    Reply
  12. matt Avatar
    matt

    I agree with the premise that the Tao can be found in Libertarianism. It can be found at the heart of many modern philosophies in fact. In regards to the philosophy of Libertarianism, the latter seems strongly grounded in Taoistic thought. Could the freedoms granted through a Libertarian policy lead to people acting, as you suggest, in ways that are decidedly unharmonious? Certainly; but the fact is that such a policy is not designed to set a draconian structure for an individual’s path. Therefore people could use that freedom to lose their way…but also to find their way; to pursue corporeal pleasures…but also to seek spiritual peace. For that reason, for providing the non-judgmental liberty that allows the worst but also the best of humanity to prosper, I think Libertarianism is the perfect modern political philosophy to complement the pursuit — or attempted pursuit — of the Tao.
    Robert, as to your first point, I am no expert in the Tao nor in Libertarianism, but I think you’re confusing Libertarians with Republicans. As to your second point, you are correct; society must be able to adapt to any drastic changes. As to your third point, Libertarianism has not been very effective or influential in the US, so I’d have to agree as well.

    Like

    Reply
  13. Cozcatl Chicuece-Tecpatl Avatar
    Cozcatl Chicuece-Tecpatl

    I disagree, Taoism teaches avoiding the excess because it is bad for you, but it never states that you should be FORCED into humility. The Tao advises not using force, rather, it states you should “stay at the center and let the world on it’s own course.” The passage merely advises against it because excess can overwhelm you if you are not careful.
    I personally dislike taking things to excess, but that is my personal choice, and you are free to your own. It’s not as if Libertarianism is about taking things to the excess, it is rather about Freedom. Freedom to take things in moderation or excess as you choose, and taking the consequences upon yourself. The Tao Te Ching merely states to be wary of the consequences of excess.

    Like

    Reply
  14. Tachyon Feathertail Avatar
    Tachyon Feathertail

    I think Taoism’s political message is that politics are a bad idea to start with. Much of it is presented as advice for leaders, and the advice can all be summed up as “Just let people be themselves.” Some identify the Tao Te Ching as the ur-anarchist tome.
    Libertarianism still involves the use of force to coerce other people, and its proponents often seem to be social Darwinists who turn a blind eye to the suffering of others. Conversely, “progressive” politicians acknowledge the same ills that philosophical Taoists do, but their solutions are very un-Taoist: New laws to make everyone behave.
    The Tao Te Ching doesn’t have anything good to say about laws.

    Like

    Reply
  15. Jon Avatar
    Jon

    Libertarianism promotes natural being with a small government whose only role is to protect the individual from acts of force against them. All other political philosophies attempt to manipulate the natural universal order of life by using force against individuals and groups to create a utopia; or rather what they think will create a utopia.
    “I’m like an idiot, my mind is so empty.” Liberal and Conservative Philosophies attempt to fill the world with what’s filling their minds. They want to control others for the sake of accomplishing what they think should be natural. These philosophies are the epitome of duality and of false-dichotomy. The Tao Te Ching could very easily have a verse stating: “You cannot have good without evil, nor can you have Liberal without Conservative.” Libertarianism is a consistent and principled philosophy; it accepts natural order, which is why it is not in the middle, to the left or to the right; it simply is the philosophy of freedom.
    I think Lao-tzu would have agreed full-heartedly with 19th Century political philosopher and economist Frederic Bestiat when he said: “To the Do-Gooders and Would-be rulers of mankind. Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small. You who wish to reform everything! Why don’t you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough.”
    There’s much foolish assumption and straw-man arguments being thrown around about the libertarian philosophy. Libertarianism is not summed up as “greedy people who want to buy whatever they want”, “greedy people who want to consume everything”; these statements are massively ignorant and indicative of little to no study of the philosophy. The core of libertarian philosophy is very simply put, freedom. It advocates non-force accept to protect oneself from the force of another (s) (hence why libertarians support gun rights). Taoism is also staunchly opposed to the use of force against others; unless to protect oneself.
    This is a subject worthy of a Thesis.

    Like

    Reply
  16. Jon Avatar
    Jon

    One More Note:
    “Libertarianism still involves the use of force to coerce other people, and its proponents often seem to be social Darwinists who turn a blind eye to the suffering of others.”
    Libertarianism absolutely does not advocate the use of force onto others. Unless you are implying some sort of strange idea that marketing, advertising, etc. is force; you are way off. Also, libertarians do not turn a blind eye to the suffering of others, quite the contrary; we simply believe that creating a false security that government should take care of those ill people removes the natural need and motivate that naturally drives us to help others. The Liberal: “Oh that poor bum on the street… Government should take care of them.” The Libertarian: “Oh that poor bum on the street, I’m going to help them right now myself.”
    Again, libertarianism promotes natural order. You seem to think that without government welfare there’d be no charity.

    Like

    Reply
  17. Tachyon Feathertail Avatar
    Tachyon Feathertail

    I’m actually starting to see how it makes sense to have a Progressive government. If government only exists to secure freedoms and keep people’s rights from being violated, it seems to make more sense to keep minorities and the powerless from being exploited, than to make the pocketbooks of the rich inviolable.
    I still find that in practice, all that Libertarianism is is shifting the balance the other way.

    Like

    Reply
  18. arashmickey Avatar
    arashmickey

    Neil above made a very important observation about Daoism. This is alluded to by the opening sentence of the Dao De Jing, which I would crudely translate as:
    “The Dao that can Dao, is not the Dao.”
    and is again reflected in the central concept of Wei Wu Wei, or action by inaction. This Wu Wei (for short) in my estimation runs counter to positivist methodology. It’s my guess that although economics may very well be a part of a theoretical ‘daoist’ community, I doubt there could be any legal concept of property rights, the right to self-determination, etc. These rights are also subject to ‘adherence’ or ‘disregard’ in accordance to the natural flow of the Dao.
    There is a story that I cannot remember well, but it went something like this:
    The king lost his bow during a hunting expedtion. His servant asked if they should search for it. The king said no, a citizen of this state has lost a bow, but a citizen of this state will find it again. Confucius commented that if had merely said “a citizen will find it”, it would have sufficed. Zhuangzi commented “It is found. That’s all.”
    Here is another story of the delightful Zhuangzi:
    All at once Master Yu fell ill. Master Ssu went to ask how he was. “Amazing” said Master Yu. “The Creator is making me all crookedy like this! My back sticks up like a hunchback and my vital organs are on top of me. My chin is hidden in my navel, my shoulders are up above my head, and my pigtail points at the sky. It must be some dislocation of the yin and yang!”
    Yet he seemed calm at heart and unconcerned. Dragging himself haltingly to the well, he looked at his reflection and said, “My, my! So the Creator is making me all crookedy like this!”
    “Do you resent it?” asked Master Ssu.
    “Why no, what would I resent? If the process continues, perhaps in time he’ll transform my left arm into a rooster. In that case I’ll keep watch on the night. Or perhaps in time he’ll transform my right arm into a crossbow pellet and I’ll shoot down an owl for roasting. Or perhaps in time he’ll transform my buttocks into cartwheels. Then, with my spirit for a horse, I’ll climb up and go for a ride. What need will I ever have for a carriage again?
    “I received life because the time had come; I will lose it because the order of things passes on. Be content with this time and dwell in this order and then neither sorrow nor joy can touch you. In ancient times this was called the `freeing of the bound.’ There are those who cannot free themselves, because they are bound by things. But nothing can ever win against Heaven – that’s the way it’s always been.

    Like

    Reply
  19. ceskeforuma Avatar
    ceskeforuma

    Ceske forum
    Ahoj, chci Vas poprosit o recenzi meho noveho fora http://www.ceskeforum.com.
    Zalozili jsme ho asi pred dvema mesici.
    Nejvice se soustredime na temata Internetova reklama, Vydelek z internetu, Zvyseni navstevnosti, zpetne odkazy a take pocitace.
    Dekuji moc za prilezitost vlozit sem mou zpravu.

    Like

    Reply
  20. Luis Peña Avatar
    Luis Peña

    There are many other points which make trying to defend libertarianism through the Dao De Jing pointless. The one which libertarians always choose to ignore is that todays world which is super-uneven socio-economic-technologic landscape presents the opportunity to coerce people through means as direct as those used by governments (e.g. violence). Power can today be concentrated by private organizations in a way that they themselves can fill up the space left by the new “limited” governments, or return the government back to its non limited form but only on those aspects they find convenient. This problem is further exacerbated by the fact that such private organizations walk through the Randian path of solely pursuing their benefit (increased returns for shareholders), whereas government, at least in democratic societies, pursues the approval of citizens by executing the policies the citizens want.
    In the end it’s not blind egotism and marginal productivity theory that’ll guide a society to progress, let alone moral progress. Less sophisticated people can the right answer to such question, why can’t the power-serving ideologues find it?

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment