The news you're not supposed to know...

Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand the World
The Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off
Operation Gladio: The Hidden History of U.S. Sponsored False Flag Terrorism in EuropeThe New American Century: The Untold History of The Project for the New American Century
Analysis posted Apr 16 2010, 10:17 PM Category: History Source: Murray N. Rothbard Print

Libertarianism in Ancient China

Murray N. Rothbard

Related: Alan Watts - Eastern Wisdom and Modern LifeThe three main schools of political thought: the Legalists, the Taoists, and the Confucians, were established from the sixth to the fourth centuries BC. Roughly, the Legalists, the latest of the three broad schools, simply believed in maximal power to the state, and advised rulers how to increase that power. The Taoists were the world's first libertarians, who believed in virtually no interference by the state in economy or society, and the Confucians were middle-of-the-roaders on this critical issue. The towering figure of Confucius (551–479 BC), whose name was actually Ch'iu Chung-ni, was an erudite man from an impoverished but aristocratic family of the fallen Yin dynasty, who became Grand Marshal of the state of Sung. In practice, though far more idealistic, Confucian thought differed little from the Legalists, since Confucianism was largely dedicated to installing an educated philosophically minded bureaucracy to rule in China.

By far the most interesting of the Chinese political philosophers were the Taoists, founded by the immensely important but shadowy figure of Lao Tzu. Little is known about Lao Tzu's life, but he was apparently a contemporary and personal acquaintance of Confucius. Like the latter he came originally from the state of Sung and was a descendant of lower aristocracy of the Yin dynasty. Both men lived in a time of turmoil, wars and statism, but each reacted very differently. For Lao Tzu worked out the view that the individual and his happiness was the key unit of society. If social institutions hampered the individual's flowering and his happiness, then those institutions should be reduced or abolished altogether. To the individualist Lao Tzu, government, with its "laws and regulations more numerous than the hairs of an ox," was a vicious oppressor of the individual, and "more to be feared than fierce tigers." Government, in sum, must be limited to the smallest possible minimum; "inaction" became the watchword for Lao Tzu, since only inaction of government can permit the individual to flourish and achieve happiness. Any intervention by government, he declared, would be counterproductive, and would lead to confusion and turmoil. The first political economist to discern the systemic effects of government intervention, Lao Tzu, after referring to the common experience of mankind, came to his penetrating conclusion: "The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished — The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be."

The worst of government interventions, according to Lao Tzu, was heavy taxation and war. "The people hunger because theft superiors consume an excess in taxation" and, "where armies have been stationed, thorns and brambles grow. After a great war, harsh years of famine are sure to follow."

The wisest course is to keep the government simple and inactive, for then the world "stabilizes itself."

As Lao Tzu put it: "Therefore, the Sage says: I take no action yet the people transform themselves, I favor quiescence and the people right themselves, I take no action and the people enrich themselves—"

Deeply pessimistic, and seeing no hope for a mass movement to correct oppressive government, Lao Tzu counseled the now familiar Taoist path of withdrawal, retreat, and limitation of one's desires.

Two centuries later, Lao Tzu's great follower Chuang Tzu (369–c.286 BC) built on the master's ideas of laissez-faire to push them to their logical conclusion: individualist anarchism. The influential Chuang Tzu, a great stylist who wrote in allegorical parables, was therefore the first anarchist in the history of human thought. The highly learned Chuang Tzu was a native of the state of Meng (now probably in Honan province), and also descended from the old aristocracy. A minor official in his native state, Chuang Tzu's fame spread far and wide throughout China, so much so that King Wei of the Ch'u kingdom sent an emissary to Chuang Tzu bearing great gifts and urging him to become the king's chief minister of state. Chuang Tzu's scornful rejection of the king's offer is one of the great declarations in history on the evils underlying the trappings of state power and the contrasting virtues of the private life:
A thousand ounces of gold is indeed a great reward, and the office of chief minister is truly an elevated position. But have you, sir, not seen the sacrificial ox awaiting the sacrifices at the royal shrine of state? It is well cared for and fed for a few years, caparisoned with rich brocades, so that it will be ready to be led into the Great Temple. At that moment, even though it would gladly change places with any solitary pig, can it do so? So, quick and be off with you! Don't sully me. I would rather roam and idle about in a muddy ditch, at my own amusement, than to be put under the restraints that the ruler would impose. I will never take any official service, and thereby I will [be free] to satisfy my own purposes.
Chuang Tzu reiterated and embellished Lao Tzu's devotion to laissez-faire and opposition to state rule: "There has been such a thing as letting mankind alone; there has never been such a thing as governing mankind [with success]." Chuang Tzu was also the first to work out the idea of "spontaneous order," independently discovered by Proudhon in the nineteenth century, and developed by F.A. von Hayek of the Austrian School in the twentieth. Thus, Chuang Tzu: "Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone."

But while people in their "natural freedom" can run their lives very well by themselves, government rules and edicts distort that nature into an artificial Procrustean bed. As Chuang Tzu wrote, "The common people have a constant nature; they spin and are clothed, till and are fed — it is what may be called their 'natural freedom.'" These people of natural freedom were born and died themselves, suffered from no restrictions or restraints, and were neither quarrelsome nor disorderly. If rulers were to establish rites and laws to govern the people, "it would indeed be no different from stretching the short legs of the duck and trimming off the long legs of the heron" or "haltering a horse." Such rules would not only be of no benefit, but would work great harm. In short, Chuang Tzu concluded, the world "does simply not need governing; in fact it should not be governed."

Chuang Tzu, moreover, was perhaps the first theorist to see the state as a brigand writ large: "A petty thief is put in jail. A great brigand becomes a ruler of a State." Thus, the only difference between state rulers and out-and-out robber chieftains is the size of their depredations. This theme of ruler-as-robber was to be repeated, as we have seen, by Cicero, and later by Christian thinkers in the Middle Ages, though of course these were arrived at independently.

Taoist thought flourished for several centuries, culminating in the most determinedly anarchistic thinker, Pao Ching-yen, who lived in the early fourth century AD, and about whose life nothing is known. Elaborating on Chuang-Tzu, Pao contrasted the idyllic ways of ancient times that had had no rulers and no government with the misery inflicted by the rulers of the current age. In the earliest days, wrote Pao, "there were no rulers and no officials. [People] dug wells and drank, tilled fields and ate. When the sun rose, they went to work; and when it set, they rested. Placidly going their ways with no encumbrances, they grandly achieved their own fulfillment." In the stateless age, there was no warfare and no disorder:
Where knights and hosts could not be assembled there was no warfare afield — Ideas of using power for advantage had not yet burgeoned. Disaster and disorder did not occur. Shields and spears were not used; city walls and moats were not built — People munched their food and disported themselves; they were carefree and contented.
Into this idyll of peace and contentment, wrote Pao Ching-yen, there came the violence and deceit instituted by the state. The history of government is the history of violence, of the strong plundering the weak. Wicked tyrants engage in orgies of violence; being rulers they "could give free rein to all desires." Furthermore, the government's institutionalization of violence meant that the petty disorders of daily life would be greatly intensified and expanded on a much larger scale. As Pao put it:
Disputes among the ordinary people are merely trivial matters, for what scope of consequences can a contest of strength between ordinary fellows generate? They have no spreading lands to arouse avarice — they wield no authority through which they can advance their struggle. Their power is not such that they can assemble mass followings, and they command no awe that might quell [such gatherings] by their opponents. How can they compare with a display of the royal anger, which can deploy armies and move battalions, making people who hold no enmities attack states that have done no wrong?
To the common charge that he has overlooked good and benevolent rulers, Pao replied that the government itself is a violent exploitation of the weak by the strong. The system itself is the problem, and the object of government is not to benefit the people, but to control and plunder them. There is no ruler who can compare in virtue with a condition of non-rule.

Pao Ching-yen also engaged in a masterful study in political psychology by pointing out that the very existence of institutionalized violence by the state generates imitative violence among the people. In a happy and stateless world, declared Pao, the people would naturally turn to thoughts of good order and not be interested in plundering their neighbors. But rulers oppress and loot the people and "make them toil without rest and wrest away things from them endlessly." In that way, theft and banditry are stimulated among the unhappy people, and arms and armor, intended to pacify the public, are stolen by bandits to intensify their plunder. "All these things are brought about because there are rulers." The common idea, concluded Pao, that strong government is needed to combat disorders among the people, commits the serious error of confusing cause and effect.

The only Chinese with notable views in the more strictly economic realm was the distinguished second century B.C. historian, Ssu-ma Ch'ien (145-c.90 BC). Ch'ien was an advocate of laissez-faire, and pointed out that minimal government made for abundance of food and clothing, as did the abstinence of government from competing with private enterprise. This was similar to the Taoist view, but Ch'ien, a worldly and sophisticated man, dismissed the idea that people could solve the economic problem by reducing desires to a minimum. People, Ch'ien maintained, preferred the best and most attainable goods and services, as well as ease and comfort. Men are therefore habitual seekers after wealth.

Since Ch'ien thought very little of the idea of limiting one's desires, he was impelled, far more than the Taoists, to investigate and analyze free market activities. He therefore saw that specialization and the division of labor on the market produced goods and services in an orderly fashion:
Each man has only to be left to utilize his own abilities and exert his strength to obtain what he wishes — When each person works away at his own occupation and delights in his own business, then like water flowing downward, goods will naturally flow ceaselessly day and night without being summoned, and the people will produce commodities without having been asked.
To Ch'ien, this was the natural outcome of the free market. "Does this not ally with reason? Is it not a natural result?" Furthermore, prices are regulated on the market, since excessively cheap or dear prices tend to correct themselves and reach a proper level.

But if the free market is self-regulating, asked Ch'ien perceptively, "what need is there for government directives, mobilizations of labor, or periodic assemblies?" What need indeed?

Ssu-ma Ch'ien also set forth the function of entrepreneurship on the market. The entrepreneur accumulates wealth and functions by anticipating conditions (i.e., forecasting) and acting accordingly. In short, he keeps "a sharp eye out for the opportunities of the times."

Finally, Ch'ien was one of the world's first monetary theorists. He pointed out that increased quantity and a debased quality of coinage by government depreciates the value of money and makes prices rise. And he saw too that government inherently tended to engage in this sort of inflation and debasement.

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was dean of the Austrian School. He was an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher. See Murray N. Rothbard's article archives.

This article is excerpted from "It All Began, As Usual, with the Greeks" in Economic Thought Before Adam Smith. An MP3 audio file of this article, read by Jeff Riggenbach, is available for download.

Latest History
- The Long History of French Military Intervention in The Middle East and Africa
- Declassified Docs Show How US Imperialism Nearly Led to a Recent Nuclear Holocaust
- The Man Who Made Your Selfies Possible
- Government Power Was His Mortal Enemy
- J.R.R. Tolkien the Anarchist: 'The Most Improper Job of Any Man is Bossing Other Men. Not One in a Million is Fit for it'
- A Radical Libertarian in the British Parliament
- The Foreign Terrorist Lincoln Tried To Hire
- 'The Loony Left': 60 Minutes Piece From 80's Takes Fascinating Look At Origin Of Today's 'Social Justice Warriors'

Comments 1 - 9 of 9 Add Comment Page 1 of 1

Posted: Apr 17 2010, 1:20 AM

173202 Thanks you for this wonderful article, I enjoyed it immensely as a Taoist and Libertarian...I will link it to my blog.

Posted: Apr 17 2010, 3:37 AM

Yes, individuals have existed in every age and every corner of the world. People who have seen things as they are as opposed to how they were supposed to be seen. And mankind at large has not yet ever been ready to listen to them/us.

And now with the coming of the brainchip we are at the crossroads that unless people finally and quickly will, they will never even have the chance again.

i would've thorougly enjoyed and found fulfilling the life of a hermit Taoist monk.

Posted: Apr 17 2010, 10:23 AM

98247 Very interesting article. Oddly enough, I myself have recently been researching the origins and principles of anarchism (I have been reading Emma Goldman, P. J. Proudhon, Peter Kropotkin) since history and our present situation in the US shows us that ANY form of state or government (even a well-meaning, limited-government constitutional republic) is bound to be progressively corrupted unless citizens are vigilant and ACTIVE at preventing their seemingly unavoidable tyranny. The state makes people inactive, makes them (as Aldous Huxley said) "love their servitude", therefore allowing itself to gradually attain more power.

Total freedom requires total responsibility and involvement. Unfortunately, the masses continue to be in denial and do not seem to want to fight the current state of affairs, as it would indeed take a huge sacrifice to change their lifestyle and to truly be "free". I wish I was wrong about this, but it will take massive turmoil to even think about meaningful societal change... I hope anarchism will eventually be a significant force in the world after the death of the state. I hope this for my children's future. The Celts did it for 1000 years; it could be done again...

That which is not of the Tao does not last long...


Posted: Apr 17 2010, 11:01 AM

Yes, agreed. Furthermore, i've long been of the opinion that we should return to small village/tribal communities with only the rule of council of the elders/wisest/whatever. Natural life, it seems to me, is only possible in such an environment. No law books, no money, no authority but that of the people themselves, etc.

Posted: Apr 18 2010, 6:05 AM

Anarchism is truly the natural state of humanity, we're under it right now, it's just there is the idea in millions of people's minds that other people have some inherent right to rule over them, same goes for those who think because they have some badge they have some right of kings.

The problem is not so much the structure of "the government" so much as the ideas in the minds of the people, if they believe in the illegitimate use of force by some elite class against the masses then they're going to create a fascist dictatorship. If they understood what real freedom was and wished to keep it preserved we'd have a constitutional republic.

That is what made America so great and led to the greatest wealth expansion in history, the short period of freedom and laissez-faire capitalism which we had due to a tenacious segment of the public which had a general appreciation for freedom and wanted to see it preserved. It wasn't so long ago people revolted over a 2% tax on tea, that is the spirit the people need to have if they are to live in a relatively free society.

It wasn't all perfect, it wasn't some imaginary utopia, but it was the best it's ever been. We're seeing a revivalism of this spirit thanks to the freedoms of the internet and the general awakening to the oppression in the US and the world. Personally, despite all the hellish tyranny and the slovenly public, I'm optimistic. They say the revolutionary war was fought by only 2-3% of the people, it doesn't take everyone being awake to have a free society and it never has.

Posted: Apr 18 2010, 8:41 AM

To be honest, i think the freedom of America was always more sleight of hand than anything else.

Here's three major discrepancies to the idea that America ever could've worked:

a) ripping off and killing off the Indians. Simply conceptually it's impossible to begin a clean country with atrocities and inhumanities. Nothing good can be begotten by evil. When you start by evil, you get what you deserve, in one form or another. At least you will never attain anything good.

b1) secret meeting to draw up the constitution. Does that sound like a clean start? And related to that
b2) Real rights can and should never be defined. To define rights means to lay groundwork for bypassing or countering them by legal measure. Exatly as it's been done. Rights do not come from a document, but from the fact of being simply being born to live in this world. When rights are being defined, they are at the same time being limited, and you know you're being taken for a ride.

c) System based on legalities and money. A system like that is always necessarily, without fail - as if by natural law it must be so - taken over by psychopaths. The psychopaths amass wealth better than others, because other people simply want to live, and psychopaths have no scruples in lying to the public to get in office. And even what seems like a good monetary system is still a system where the attainment of wealth does matter - that is, it is an inhumane system. All kinds of excuses can be made to explain it away, but anything can be rationalized when eyes have been diverted from a natural way of life. After that, everything is up for grabs.

For example, there are no, absolutely none, reasons why any sort of genetic manipulation should be done. It is an abomination, not in the eyes of God, but in the eyes of anyone whose starting point is nature and being a part of nature. And any other starting point, no matter how clever or how beautiful, however attractive on surface, is deviant. When you abandon nature it is by necessity that the aberrations and perversions will only grow in time.

Also, the most "humane" republican, or conservative, believes in that one must earn his living and then pay for the no no. Being able to live is an unalienable RIGHT of any being ever born. To lose one's own home, or not being able to have one, because of money, is insane. It's a game - capitalism is a game. It's not for adults who are interested in life and the world, it's a game in which one must exert his powers to attain money, money which is nothing. People always say, "we all must play by the rules." Exactly so. Unfortunately, though, i don't want to play. My life's too bloody important to play around amassing money and pretending i'm doing something worthwhile.

Like Alan Watt has said many times, humans are the only species in existence that throw you out of your house because of money. There is no other species that lives so inhumanely.

And mind you, all these ideas, laws, money, countries etc. they are artificial to begin with. They have been invented so as to control. There shouldn't be countries or borders or economies. When they exist, you people have been dehumanized into citizens, quite a descent from being an infinite sentient being.

Posted: Apr 19 2010, 3:12 AM

98247 Freedom man: excellent post. The mere existence of psychopathy and the state leads invariably to poltical ponerology, as the psychopath (and the sociopathic behavior they generate around them as they ascend to power) dictates the dysfunctional path the acquired center of power will take. Lobaczewski exposed this in his book "Political Ponerology". Apathy and submission to "authority" from the masses (as demontrated by the Milner experiments) only tends to propagate this pathocracy. Again, it is hard to quantify how "wealthy" Celtic anarchism was (since they didn't document much), but their 1000 year existence until their conquest by Cromwell is an enduring testimony of societal success.

Posted: Apr 19 2010, 3:24 AM

98247 Sorry. I meant the Milgram experiments. Here is something I wrote about this:

Posted: Apr 19 2010, 3:59 AM

Anon: Thank you for your very interesting and excellent article - i will get that book you mention as soon as possible.

Regarding the "sociopathic doublethink", i have fallen out with many, or most, or almost all, of my friends who are or have been involved in the academic world - even if they acknowledge there is something wrong with the way things are they are either apologists for the system or at least think nothing can be done about it, and thus justify their own partaking in it. That is to say, they have given up their moral autonomy and replaced it with a sort of amoral pragmatism.

With that in mind, i don't immediately see how unveiling the psychopaths for what they are would facilitate change, when people have been indoctrinated into a psychopathic system. My point is that we are so far into this, and so close to the brainchip, that perhaps at this point only thing possible anymore is individual awakening to sentience and reality.
Comments 1 - 9 of 9 Page 1 of 1

Add Comment


Verification *
Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below

Please see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.

About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

Advanced Search


Remember Me
Forgot Password?

VIDEO: Off-Duty Cop Rams His SUV Into Man's Car For Trying To Hold Him Accountable For Reckless Driving - 11/30Paul Craig Roberts Rages At The "Arrogance, Hubris, & Stupidity" Of The US Government - 11/30The Mathematical Paradox That Destroys The Argument For NSA Surveillance - 11/30Police Brutality Victim Mysteriously Killed a Day Before Receiving $450k Settlement - 11/30New Photos Show Chicago Cops On Burger King CPU Where Laquan McDonald Shooting Footage 'Disappeared' - 12/01Two Brave Cops Under Attack For Exposing Militarization and Corruption in Their Department - 11/30Donald Sutherland Reveals The Real Meaning Of The Hunger Games - 11/27LA to Scan All Cars, Publicly Shame Anyone Who Drives Through a 'Prostitution Area' - 11/30

Man Follows Speeding Cop, Finds Out He Was Speeding To Buy PeanutsMission Creeps: Homeland Security Agents Confiscate Women's Panties For 'Copyright Infringement'Cop Shoots Couple's Dog, Threatens Jail For Trying To Save Dog's LifeSWAT Team Shoots Teen Girl & Her Dog During Pot Raid On Wrong HomeDurham, NC Cop Testifies Faking 911 Calls To Enter Homes Is "Official Policy"Indiana Sheriff Says US A "War Zone" To Justify New MRAP Military VehicleTampa Cops Surveil Pot Dealer, Catch Him Selling Pot, Raid His Home & Kill Him"You Just Shot An Unarmed Man!": Witness Says Police Shot His Friend With His Hands Up