Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tao of Liberty:
Dialogue in Heaven between Laozi and Kongzi
LIU Junning
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
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
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.
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
10
prefer that which is open to the public, and I believe we must subdue our selfinterest. 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 selfinterest, 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
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
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.
The Shouwen Jiezi is one of the oldest dictionary of Chinese characters, its origins dating back to late-Han
period (25-220 BC).
15
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
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.
Translators note: I have avoided the oft-repeated translation of as the way of heaven in favor of
the authors preferred translation.
8
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
9
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.
10
Translators 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
11
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.
22
Translators Note: Here the author uses a courtesy name for Confucius, Zhongni ().
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.
13
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
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
15
28
29
18
Dream 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
19
Mozi was philosopher from the early Warring States, and was an active opponent of Taoism and
Confucianism.
31
20
Feng 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
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
38
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
40
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
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.
46
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
exterminate human beings. The greater ones ability to destroy life, the better one
is suited for the military. If a military is put into action in a war, both sides will
suffer as a result, both in terms the destruction of human lives and property.
Theres one point Id like to you pay special attention to: during times of war, we
tend to look with glee only upon the number of casualties we are able to inflict
upon our enemies. Yet what I see is the death of my fellow man. During Chinas
countless civil wars, casualties were treated as belonging to the enemy or to ones
own side. Yet in reality, those who died on the opposing side of the battlefield
could be ones own compatriots, neighbors, classmates, relatives, or even a
brother. The greater the number of deaths of these unknown soldiers, the greater
the likelihood that the fallen is a brother or compatriot, as all were commoners
before entering the military. Consequently, no matter the war, no matter if one
48
stands on the side of the victors or the defeated, no matter if one fights for
justice or not, humanity will always suffer a loss. The goal of the military is to
extinguish life, and so all who were destroyed are victims, and thus all are entitled
to the rites of proper burial.
The existence of military force is a paradox: the greater a militarys capability of
violence, the better the army. Yet the less this capability is utilized, the better. A
nation must possess a military, yet it must do its utmost to keep this force from
being used, both against its enemies and of course against its people. Those
countries with a predilection for the use of military force to solve problems will
find that this behavior will bring disastrous consequences to both the nation
itself, as well as its people. The price of war is always great, bringing disaster to
the people with little to no benefit at all.
Kongzi: Your idea that we should all loathe military force is unrealistic. What
about the soldiers themselves, who, as a matter of their profession, will be fond
of combat.
Laozi: I am speaking of those who are not a part of the military class. That being
said, even if we were speaking of a high-ranking military official, he or she should
not act in a warlike manner, for if they agitate for war, this will bring enormous
pressure upon the countrys politicians. If military leaders were to begin exerting
pressure on those in power to go to war, this would be a fundamental change,
similar to Japans experience during WWII. Thus, whether or not a county goes
to war should not be a matter for military officials to decide.
Just like the government itself, the military - funded by the taxes collected from
the people - must be an organization that serves the people. As a result, the
armed forces must belong to and be overseen by all the people, and military
force must never be used against them. Taking the point one step further, the
military is a special type of public service organization: it possesses enormous
weaponized force, and is a violent organization. An armed force is a countrys
most destructive power, and thus requires resolute oversight. Its exploitation by a
political party or private interests must also be prevented, otherwise disaster will
befall all other members of society.
49
50
51
During Times of Peace, They Place Respect to their Left. During times of war, They
Place Respect to their Right.
He Will Not Allow Himself to be Compelled into Using Force;
He will by no Means Take Delight in Plunder
To be Victorious is Not to be Praised,
To Praise the Machinery of War is to Delight in Murder.
All under Heaven Must Forbid Such Unbridled Rampage!
On festive occasions, the left side is afforded the prized position; on occasions of
mourning, the right side.
The general of an army is afforded a position on the left; the top commanding officer
takes his place on the right.
The Use of Force Should be Treated with Great Sorrow.
Casualties are Inevitable in War, and it is with a Heavy Heart that we Should
Mourn.
Even in Victory, a Funeral Ceremony is Proper.
52
53
22
54
Laozi: But in the years that Confucian ideas reigned, capitalism and the free
market were never predominate. In the past several thousand years, there has
never been anything approaching true capitalism or the market economy. So
where did the historical gap between the rich and poor in China come from? It
can clearly be seen that the blame for the wealth disparity should not be laid
upon capitalism or the market economy. In fact just the opposite. In those
countries today that have developed capitalist and market institutions, the
income gap is relatively small.
Income disparities are the result of power disparities, or more accurately the
result of a dictatorship in which the ruler is unrestrained. Where power is
unrestricted and government officials are free to flout the law, the rights and
freedoms of the people are suppressed and the income gap will only grow. By
unleashing the power of the State to target the rich, the main culprit is left off the
hook and the suffering of the poor will only exacerbate. Throughout Chinas
history, has the country experienced more polarization when power is
unrestrained or when there has been economic liberalization? When have the
final years of a dynasty not seen extreme corruption and polarization? The cause
of nation-wide chaos is not wealth inequality, but dictatorship. Its not the rich
who give rise to the wealth gap, but dictatorship. You Confucians only see the
threat to the ruler posed by extreme wealth and extreme poverty, but you ignore
the threat to the rich and the poor alike from the ruler. This conflict between the
ruler and the ruled has succeeded in quietly replacing the conflict between rich
and poor, and remains a significant problem.
Kongzi: Ive always believed that wealth and poverty must have their limits, and
if resources are distributed according to these limits, the nation will be at peace.
Is this wrong? For example, would it not be better for the people if resources
were redistributed by the ruler so that above, they have enough to serve their
parents and, below, they have enough to support their wives and children. In
years of prosperity they always have enough to eat; in years of dearth they are
able to escape starvation.23
23
55
Laozi: Confucianism supports the issuance of decrees by the ruler to adjust the
distribution of wealth and thus maintain social stability and the position of the
emperor. Yet this perspective is completely wrong. If forced wealth transfers are
so effective, why do we see so much large-scale unrest? Why does this bring
about not equality of wealth, but equality of poverty? It is because you advocate
using the power of the ruler to replace the Tao of Heaven, and so the result is
precisely the opposite of what you intended. Dictatorship is the creation of
polarization. Using dictatorial means to try to solve the problem of polarization
can only lead to yet more dictatorship. Using chaos to pursue peace is futile.
Kongzi: While I do not deny the goodness of the Tao of Heaven, I cannot see
it, nor can I touch it, and so aside from the sovereign, who else can I look to?
Laozi: Those in power do not have the ability to make us all equally rich, and at
the most all they can do is to enrich themselves. This so-called equality of wealth
is typically an act of self-enrichment wrapped in the cloth of the public good. In
attempting to force the equalization of wealth, they are not only usurping the
Tao of Heaven, but also exceeding the limits of a States abilities. Firstly, the
State lacks the ability to create a coherent standard. Second, it lacks the ability to
effectively implement the policy. Thirdly, it is incapable of ensuring there are no
unforeseen consequences.
The greatest injustice is that brought about by the use of power. Those in power
have decided to not recognize the Tao of Heavens invisible hand rather than
pretend it doesnt exist. They attempt to replace the Tao of Heaven with their
own mocked-up version of it. If the ruler were to comply with the Tao of
Heaven rather than try to supersede it by respecting its unseen regulating
function, they would be in a superior position to bring about an equality of
wealth. If the ruler was to recognize that the Tao of Heaven stood above
government, he would comply with the Tao of Heaven and refrain from using
force to bring about wealth equality. Otherwise the result is either absolute
poverty or the inequality of resources. The focal point of our dispute should not
be whether or not we help the needy, but rather which methods for alleviating
poverty are the most efficacious.
56
Kongzi: To tell you the truth, before my discussion with you today, I was quite
proud of my ideas on wealth equality. Todays society celebrates equality between
all people, and I thought my ideas on wealth were a part of this larger equality.
Laozi: Men are created equal, but that does not mean they are born with the
same level of spirituality, material possessions, opportunity, personality,
character, and achievement, nor does it imply that that everyone will share in the
same amount of wealth. The goal of equal rights is to ensure that all enjoy the
maximum degree of free choice, and the full realization of all aspects of human
potential. Equal rights also mean that one can enjoy the freedom of their
individual and fundamental inalienable rights, and thus are entitled to be free
from the encroachment of other individuals, such as the mafia and the
government. Equality does not mean that the government must rectify all
differences between members of society.
If the multifariousness of human society as created by the Tao of Heaven is to be
replaced by simplicity, it is inevitable that only with the use of brute force, mental
torture, or even the destruction of the flesh that one can achieve these goals.
Therefore, unity and uniformity inevitably suffocate vitality and freedom. Yet the
most frightening idea is that uttered by Wang Xiaobo 24 : I loathe wealth
inequality, and we fight today for the equality of our contemporaries! Robbing
the rich to give to the poor will bring about worse results than the original wealth
inequality. If true wealth equality were to be realized, the result would be the
equality of poverty, moving the masses into equal decrepitude while enriching
the minority of rulers. It is not equal wealth that I oppose, nor do I welcome
polarization, yet I do oppose absolute egalitarianism and the reliance on
government decrees to equalize wealth. What I advocate is to allow the Tao of
Heaven to work along with the natural forces of the market to bring about
wealth equalization. When we speak of wealth distribution, governments can
only aid the Tao of Heaven, and must not try to replace it!
24
Wang Xiaobo was the leader of a peasant revolt during the North Song Dynasty (960-1127 AD)
57
58
Dialogue 9: I and We
Kongzi: Theres one issue Ive always been unclear about. Is the source ()
of society I or we? If I is the source, then wont we all simply look after
ourselves? Society would be no more than a plate of scattered sand ().
If its we, then wont the individual be treated with disdain, even oppression?
This is truly a dilemma!
Laozi: Of course I is the basis of society, for without it, where could we
possibly get we? It is precisely because of the neglect and suppression of the
individual - of the I- that society turns into a plate of loose sand. It is only
when individual associations are equal that the Tao of Heaven can be peaceful. If
we do not allow for the peaceful existence of the individual, then society can
never itself enjoy tranquility.
Kongzi: Im reminded of what the Daoist philosopher Zhuangzi () once
said. Those societies that treat we as the foundation of society find mutual aid
and comfort in even the most humble of circumstances and are brimming with
affection and warmth, while those societies in which the "I" forms the
foundation of society often forget the existence of their fellow man or otherwise
treat them with indifference. We Confucians hope that humans can all come to
the aid of others even in unforgiving situations ().
Laozi: Mutual help in humble circumstances () is an idea replete with
aesthetic significance, but this is to take the imminent arrival of disaster as a
starting premise. Although a life in which the hardships of others are ignored
may lack luster, it is at least one in which the individual can live freely. Suppose
that you were a fish, and you found yourself in the rapidly evaporating pothole.
Would you rather live here with the mutual aid of your fellow fish? Or would you
prefer to swim anonymously in a great lake or river? Remember, the moral life is
often an uneventful life.
59
Kongzi: A dull life is rather tedious and devoid of beauty. If I see a thing of
beauty, I must always stop to examine and appreciate it. Music and dainties will
make the passing guest stop (for a time).25 When you wrote these words, it was
as if you were describing me. When I hear glorious music, such as Shao music (
), or when I see delicious food, such as dried jerky, it is quite difficult for me
to avoid stopping to linger.
Laozi: It is not that I am against the pleasures of food and music, for these
things appeal to our sensory organs, and thus are dictated by our instincts. I
know that you are dedicated to the pursuit of the Tao of Heaven, which is a
rational and spiritual quest. The pursuit of the Tao of Heaven and the pursuit of
lifes enjoyments both stem from our human nature. While each individual
pursues both of these to varying degrees, neither must be neglected.
Kongzi: However, didnt you once say the following: Individuals are flawed and
imperfect, and as such, how can these individuals be societys most important
element of survival? If individuals organize under the leadership of a wise
monarch (), they will be able to collectively offset and overcome their
mutual defects and weaknesses. A State thus formed would seem to be the most
perfect, and I believe it should be held above the individual. There are many
individuals who are lackluster, or even worse, they are malicious. If we hold aloft
the individual, do we not run the risk of holding them too high? Please help me
out: is the individual or the State more important?
Laozi: The moral conduct of each individual varies widely, but all are equal
creations of the Tao of Heaven. We must not aggravate the discriminatory
treatment of some simply because there are differences between us. If you take a
closer look, youll see that historically the worst in society are not to be found
among the common people, but rather are the leaders of nations. They esteem
themselves too highly, when in fact they are the worst among us. How many
sagacious rulers can be found in Chinas historical annals? I myself cannot locate
a single one. Leaving aside the legendary rulers of myth, in reality the list of evil
deeds perpetrated by our emperors is long indeed. How could we allow these
25
60
same individuals to control the machinery of State power and exercise control
over the individual? The Chinese people often liken the head of state () to a
genuine leader (), but both of these words in Chinese trace their root to
articles of clothing (namely, the collar and the sleeve), and we find in reality that
these are both the portions of clothing most easily stained. Why should we
mythologize them?
The Tao of Heaven confers an extreme degree of importance upon the
individual. In all that is on this earth, the Tao of Heaven is the most important.
Next comes the individual. A social organization formed from individuals cannot
be more important than the individual, for the individual is both the minimum
that can exist, just as the individual is the maximum that can exist. It could even
be said that aside from the Tao of Heaven, the individual is the ultimate that can
exist. This is also due to the fact that the individual possesses a soul, whereas
organizations or groups comprised of individuals lack this flexibility, or possess a
soul only in the literary or fictional sense of the word.
We are all the creations of the Tao of Heaven, and so too is the freedom
bestowed upon us. To bully and humiliate our fellow man, to deprive others of
their freedom, these actions are to show contempt for the Tao of Heaven, which
will certainly not idly sit by. When we look at the course of humanity, we see that
when the individual is held aloft, the space for rights-depriving dictatorships is
that much less. Can it be denied that this is the work of the Tao of Heaven?
Kongzi: Actually, I now see that my ideas are quite confused. Ive previous said
His own approbation is the superior man's rule. The approbation of others is
the mean man's.26 If each individual serves as his or her own primary standard
and handles their own affairs with aplomb, would we not have a society replete
with gentlemen ()? Yet I fear that in such a society the concept of I would
be given too much prominence, and would lead to a loss of respect for authority,
even outright rebellion against the Emperor. If everyone sought to take his place
on the throne, would we not enter a war of all against all? Whether the root of
the nation is I or we is truly a vexing question.
26
. The
61
Laozi: His own approbation is the superior man's rule. The approbation of
others is the mean man's. This saying of yours is well known, and is full with the
spirit of individualism. It is only natural that he who loses his sense of self is
unlikely to become a true gentleman. His own approbation is merely the idea
that individuals are responsible for their own interests and behavior. Rather than
belonging to some higher collective, every individual belongs to him or herself.
The individual is not subservient to any group or groups within a nation, nor is it
a cog in the wheel of a political party or the nation. The relationship between I
and we is simple and free from ambiguity, for without I there can be no
we. The core of society and the State is the individual.
I dont know if youve noticed or not, but we Chinese are fonder than most in
abusing the term we. Were only willing to shout we and never I. Where
we should use I, the Chinese usually use we. Even when discussing those
tasks completed by one self, the Chinese still might say that we finished the
project. Where I is required, we still only dare to say we. In Chinas long
history of political rule by the emperor and his ministers, there was no place for
the concept of I. However, while we can never represent I, it also cannot
smother the idea of I.
Kongzi: Thank you for the vote of confidence. If I may summarize what you
just said: the idea that the individual must exist for the nation, or sacrifice for the
good of the ruler is completely mistaken?
Laozi: Yes, this idea is completely wrong. If the individual is not allowed to live
on his own terms, but rather is expected to live for the nation, for whom exactly
does the nation exist? If the State was completely independent and had no
relation to the citizen, how could we require everyone to exist for the State? If
the State exists for the good of the citizen, why not allow the people to directly
live for themselves instead of creating some State-led Rube Goldberg machine to
serve their interests? Of course, perhaps this is because the State can serve to
enrich those in power. Thus, the people must first pursue their own ends, as it is
only when the individual squarely faces his own interests that he is able to
properly interact with others. Only when we know what our own interests are
can we truly understand the interests of others. A society that seeks to eradicate
all traces of individualism is not only irrational, but also suicidal.
62
The Tao of Heaven gives life to us all, and as a result, aside from the Tao, we
must first obey the self. The Tao of Heaven places emphasis on the individual
above all, and so the actions of government will inevitably lead to restrictions on
the individual. To respect the value of oneself is also to respect the value of the
individual. When we consider the root cause of the rise and fall of civilizations,
we see that every page of history gives the same answer to the question of what
gives rise to human progress: independent and free individuals. Consequently,
government must yield to the individual. Only when a government puts into
practice the concept of government inaction () can the individual flourish.
The responsibility of government is not to pursue its own interests in place of
the individuals, but rather to act as an escort for the individual as they pursue
their own ends.
You See the Great Presence of the Tao of Heaven in all under the sky.
The whole world will convert to the Tao of Heaven.
To achieve Peace, You must travel the road of the Tao.
Music and cuisine will give pause to the traveler.
When spoken of the Tao seems insipid and flavorless
You can try to see it, but it is invisible,
You can try to hear it, but it is silent,
You can try to use it, but it is inexhaustible.
63
Appendix
Dialogue 1
(
)
64
65
66
67
Dialogue 2
(
)
68
69
70
71
Dialogue 3
(
)
72
73
74
75
76
Dialogue 4
()
!
.
77
78
79
80
Dialogue 5
()
81
82
83
84
Dialogue 6
(
)
85
86
87
88
89
90
Dialogue 7
(
)
91
92
1958
93
94
95
Dialogue 8
(
)
96
97
98
99
Dialogue 9
(
)
100
101
102