Political Ethics for Taoists and Buddhists

[Apech]

I would say that there is absolutely no reason why the TTC couldn't be applied to modern state and world politics. The general consensus within the TTC is that the government should have as little impact and involvement in the citizen's life as possible. The TTC was written for the ruler, and only the most naive and stubborn reader will argue otherwise, but I think the application of the TTC to modern government just requires that one change their view of what government is supposed to do and be.

 

I would assume that practicing Taoists would most likely avoid the republican and democratic parties because they tend to gravitate towards the extremes of right and left and instead consider themselves to be non-partisan moderates.

 

Aaron

 

Yes you would have to change the view of what government is supposed to be (and do ... presumably) ... but I think the point is you would have to (or it would be best to) develop this new (TTC informed) view within the context of where we are now ... that is in western liberal democracy ... individual freedom and the rule of law ... when we have a more or less universal education system then feeding stomachs and starving heads ... treating people as straw dogs ... daily doing less (when much of society calls out for intervention) ... well it wouldn't be simple would it?

 

I doubt that Lao Tzu would say roll everything back to feudal overlords and start from there. He would say deal with what is there now ... perhaps ...

[Aaron]

Yes you would have to change the view of what government is supposed to be (and do ... presumably) ... but I think the point is you would have to (or it would be best to) develop this new (TTC informed) view within the context of where we are now ... that is in western liberal democracy ... individual freedom and the rule of law ... when we have a more or less universal education system then feeding stomachs and starving heads ... treating people as straw dogs ... daily doing less (when much of society calls out for intervention) ... well it wouldn't be simple would it?

 

I doubt that Lao Tzu would say roll everything back to feudal overlords and start from there. He would say deal with what is there now ... perhaps ...

 

Actually it would be quite simple, it just isn't going to happen, because government intrusion into people's lives means big corporate bucks.

 

Also Lao Tzu didn't even say roll it back to feudal lords, he said that a wise ruler governs his land without the people knowing he was doing it. Lao Tzu also advocated ignorance of the populace. He essentially said, keep the population simple and they're less likely to understand that things could be better and hence they'll be less likely to want more or revolt.

 

He also advocated not placing value on things, in order to reduce competition, but then what's the point in being rich.

 

Of course too many people take the straw dogs passage out of context, sort of like taking one line that you like and leaving out all the others that say to do otherwise. a lot of people I might consider to be sociopaths tell me that "Tao treats all things like straw dogs" in order to counter his comments regarding compassion and tolerance. In the end I get the impression it's just to justify their notion that whatever they want to do is fine.

 

Anyways, it doesn't matter, nothing is going to change as a result of this thread, so maybe we need to stop taking all of this stuff so seriously?

 

Aaron

Edited June 4, 2012 by Twinner

[Apech]

@twinner

 

How could implementing a new philosophy of government be simple? Yes Lao Tzu does seem to advocate keeping people uneducated but of course (as I was trying to say above) people are educated ... they are for the most part literate and numerate and so on. So you could not .... even suppose you woke up one morning and found yourself in charge undo what has been done. You would have to start from where we are ... to see how Taoist principles could be applied.

 

I think just to say ... well its not going to happen so what's the point is in itself rather despairing. What the world lacks, it seems to me, are any new ideas for living and governing. In fact probably for the first time in history there is no alternative to some kind of model of democratic capitalism ... nothing that's seriously proposed that is. This is why we are always faced with Mr. A and Mr. B who look more of less the same and say almost the same things. the one who has better PR and is lucky with the chance gets in ...

 

As the OP asked political ethics for Buddhists or Taoist have got to include embracing change and transformation. Not radical or revolutionary change (necessarily) but at least at the heart of the approach has got to be the acknowledgement that you have to work with the dynamics of the moment.

 

ralis said something about the Tea Party having rigid ideas which do not allow any embracing of change ... if this is so ... then they can hardly be in line with Taoist principles.

[Mark Foote]

@twinner

 

How could implementing a new philosophy of government be simple? Yes Lao Tzu does seem to advocate keeping people uneducated but of course (as I was trying to say above) people are educated ... they are for the most part literate and numerate and so on. So you could not .... even suppose you woke up one morning and found yourself in charge undo what has been done. You would have to start from where we are ... to see how Taoist principles could be applied.

 

 

I believe the Republicans in the U.S.A. have a plan to give the citizenry vouchers so they can pick private schools instead of public. I think it's a ruse to continue the trend toward making a real education something only the rich can afford, thus "keeping the people uneducated".

 

In the world today it's the rate of population growth and the demand for "modern" amenities for all that population that is likely to be our undoing. I try to have faith, and I know I can only act toward the future when judgement is no longer part of my considerations, and this is the practice. I am grateful to those who have taught a way beyond judgement in the action of the moment; Taoism and Tao Bums is a part of my education, and the existence of Tao Bums and sites like it is to me an encouraging sign that the information age may actually play a part in our future.

 

Am I off-topic yet?...

[joeblast]

Yes you would have to change the view of what government is supposed to be (and do ... presumably) ... but I think the point is you would have to (or it would be best to) develop this new (TTC informed) view within the context of where we are now ... that is in western liberal democracy ... individual freedom and the rule of law ... when we have a more or less universal education system then feeding stomachs and starving heads ... treating people as straw dogs ... daily doing less (when much of society calls out for intervention) ... well it wouldn't be simple would it?

 

I doubt that Lao Tzu would say roll everything back to feudal overlords and start from there. He would say deal with what is there now ... perhaps ...

well I believe he certainly wouldn't advocate harshest methods of change.

 

agreed on the information in/out of the box, you cant count on the populace being ignorant any longer, esp in this day and age. Let them have all the info they need.

 

Funny how there is a lot of agreement on identification of issues, just how to proceed with such a multi faceted set of problems.

 

We need a smaller gov...ironic that some agree with t p in principle but distrust em because of the party its trying to take over. Gotta start somewhere right? You're not going to convince the progressives we need smaller gub, that is the opposite of their goal.

 

Reforming edu will come more when the money is gone then real solutions will have to be explored because the "just toss money at it" solution will not be available. Probably the best thing for it in the long run, let the internet kill as much of college as possible with free learning so that it scales down degrees to those that really need them, not simply attending "because you're supposed to."

[Apech]

well I believe he certainly wouldn't advocate harshest methods of change.

 

agreed on the information in/out of the box, you cant count on the populace being ignorant any longer, esp in this day and age. Let them have all the info they need.

 

Funny how there is a lot of agreement on identification of issues, just how to proceed with such a multi faceted set of problems.

 

We need a smaller gov...ironic that some agree with t p in principle but distrust em because of the party its trying to take over. Gotta start somewhere right? You're not going to convince the progressives we need smaller gub, that is the opposite of their goal.

 

Reforming edu will come more when the money is gone then real solutions will have to be explored because the "just toss money at it" solution will not be available. Probably the best thing for it in the long run, let the internet kill as much of college as possible with free learning so that it scales down degrees to those that really need them, not simply attending "because you're supposed to."

 

Deleted your last two duplicates Joe.

 

I am sure LZ would tell the government to interfere less. That's for certain.

 

But I am also sure that his government would not look like a modifies version of anything we have now. If it was what would be the point?

[joeblast]

true, but we're not creating something from scratch here

[Vmarco]

[ralis]

 

 

Reforming edu will come more when the money is gone then real solutions will have to be explored because the "just toss money at it" solution will not be available. Probably the best thing for it in the long run, let the internet kill as much of college as possible with free learning so that it scales down degrees to those that really need them, not simply attending "because you're supposed to."

 

You are advocating free learning on the internet? What you will have are poorly educated persons with virtually no critical thinking skills due to the fact that their assumptions will be largely unchallenged. No different than Christian home schooling with an emphasis on a 6,000 year old earth. Further, an internet education offers no direct face to face interaction with one's peers.

 

A real education is not necessarily about finding a job but is in regards to being challenged by one's peers and professors.

[Apech]

Interesting premise. Would LZ be supportive of the over 40,000 new laws in 2012, many of which being intrusive, social fascist laws against women, LGBT's, Freethinkers, and minorities, initiated by Tea Party fanatics? Freethinking has become such an issue, that it appears the DSM-V is going to make it mentally institutionalizing illness.

 

Shakyamuni Buddha may have been the first to define freethought when he said in the Kalama Sutra, "Do not accept anything by mere tradition. . . Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. . . Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your preconceived notions." Buddha taught irreligion; that is, to not accept "sets of belief."

 

What the World needs are people who support HONESTY. Not a single Federal US politician is HONEST. Not a single Federal US politician puts their Oath to the US Constitution before their faith-based agendas.

 

"it is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society" J Krishnamurti

 

If LZ were alive today, he would surely express that 'No HONEST person is a Tea Party supporter.'

 

V

 

I would suggest that LZ would say ... as few laws as needed for the state to function and none which are about interfering with peoples own business (i.e. no nanny state).

 

The Tea Party is surely just a reaction to recent US government failures. I doubt if LZ would have very much to say about it.

 

I would like to know what LZ's economic policy would be.

[ralis]

I would suggest that LZ would say ... as few laws as needed for the state to function and none which are about interfering with peoples own business (i.e. no nanny state).

 

The Tea Party is surely just a reaction to recent US government failures. I doubt if LZ would have very much to say about it.

 

I would like to know what LZ's economic policy would be.

 

LZ lived in a different time and culture and is it appropriate to apply his writings to the present?

 

What some may view as a government nanny state is a response to real human need. Social programs such as the 'The Great Society' program started by Linden Johnson was an attempt to solve the problem of abject poverty in extremely depressed areas in the U.S. I grew up bordering what was classified as Appalachia in the 60's and the poverty was horrific. I have traveled in the backwoods of Louisiana and Mississippi where poverty is a way of life. Very little educational opportunities and certainly no or very little business environment where a decent living can be earned. The problem is usually compounded by extremely low wages.

[Apech]

LZ lived in a different time and culture and is it appropriate to apply his writings to the present?

 

What some may view as a government nanny state is a response to real human need. Social programs such as the 'The Great Society' program started by Linden Johnson was an attempt to solve the problem of abject poverty in extremely depressed areas in the U.S. I grew up bordering what was classified as Appalachia in the 60's and the poverty was horrific. I have traveled in the backwoods of Louisiana and Mississippi where poverty is a way of life. Very little educational opportunities and certainly no or very little business environment where a decent living can be earned. The problem is usually compounded by extremely low wages.

 

What I was referring to as the nanny state has nothing to do with the Great Society. In the country where I live now, Portugal the literacy rate in 1970's was about 40% because of an oppressive right wing government which lasted from 30's till a communist revolution (bloodless in the 70's). There are still many in the older generation who cannot read or write and who had to leave schooling at 10,11 and 12 years old. Lifting people out of poverty - or providing the opportunities for people to do it for themselves is not nanny-state. Nanny state is where the state decides it must rule on detailed aspects of daily life through legislation. i.e. nothing to do with real human need.

 

There seems to be an overall thrust in the TTC which aims at government doing less. However what I am arguing is that if a Taoist administration were to come to power (unlikely I know) it would have to deal with the reality of the situation as of now. So what principles could be distilled from TTC etc. which would inform the programme of this new government? I think that a Taoist would be able to support the idea of individual liberty as defined by the ideals of western liberalism (small 'l') because I doubt if a Taoist would want to legislate about how people lived their day to day lives. i.e. not a nanny state.

 

 

 

[Vmarco]

[thelerner]

I think if the Old Man was around today he'd either ignore politics or get in his car and head for the mountains.

[joeblast]

V do you type that every time or do you have it saved to a notepad file? This has got to be like the 15th time you've posted it damn near verbatim.

 

Maybe there's a person or two out there that hasn't seen it yet

 

All we're seeing is you disparaging a group of people and offering Jack for ideas. How do you think lz would view ss, Medicare Medicaid and the overtaking of just about all the tax monies the gov takes in, just on those line items alone? And borrowing the rest for whatever gov outlays there are? Not very responsible. Would he say the gov is doing too much, spending too much, or would he say let's just raise taxes to match what the gov thinks it should have the power to do?

[Apech]

V do you type that every time or do you have it saved to a notepad file? This has got to be like the 15th time you've posted it damn near verbatim.

 

Maybe there's a person or two out there that hasn't seen it yet

 

All we're seeing is you disparaging a group of people and offering Jack for ideas. How do you think lz would view ss, Medicare Medicaid and the overtaking of just about all the tax monies the gov takes in, just on those line items alone? And borrowing the rest for whatever gov outlays there are? Not very responsible. Would he say the gov is doing too much, spending too much, or would he say let's just raise taxes to match what the gov thinks it should have the power to do?

 

Could you translate that for non-americans? I assume the ss is not Hitlers storm troopers.

 

How should a Taoist view taxes anyway. You can't run a modern (or any) state without them. And I am sure in Ancient China there were plenty of bushels of rice going the way of the sage-king. Is the criticism about efficiency ... i.e. any taxes raised should be spent on things that profit the state and therefore everyone and not on wasteful ideologically based policies???

[Vmarco]

V do you type that every time or do you have it saved to a notepad file? This has got to be like the 15th time you've posted it damn near verbatim.

 

 

Do you mean how Tea Party fanatics, who propagandize Less Government, initiated the bulk of the over 40,000 new intrusion laws enacted in 2012? Or how the Tea Party Congress people spent more than 30 days in Congress, in Sept/Oct 2011, during a fragil economic time, to push through a law restating that America trusts in the Judeo-Christian god delusion?

 

If one openly and honestly reduces the actions of the Tea Party, the only conclusion is that this groupthink is the most diabolically threat to humanity that ever existed. I'd doubt Lao Tzu would take a ride a ride into the mountains and bury his head.

 

Lao Tzu said, "Who can enjoy enlightenment and remain indifferent to suffering in the world? This is not keeping with the Way?"

 

Nothing,...not the followers Hitler, Theodosius, Justinian, Tomas de Torquemada, or Herod combined, poses a greater threat to humanity than the groupthink of the American Tea Party.

[ralis]

Do Tea Party persons consider what the implications are of a smaller government? Most likely not. Smaller government leads to more power being concentrated in the hands of fewer government officials. The Tea Bagger wet dream is to privatize more government services to predatory corporations that are only accountable to themselves. Neofeudalism and neoliberalism are the only outcomes of such a single minded ideology.

 

I doubt any Taoist would advocate the fusion of government and predatory corporations.

Edited June 6, 2012 by ralis

[ralis]

The Tao is about the observation and study of nature and our relationship with. Tea Party followers are not concerned with nature but are in opposition to it. The Tea Party advocates condone the destruction of the environment by corporations at any cost. Pollution, destruction of forests, more carbon being emitted into the biosphere, are some of the parasitic functions of this Ayn Rand based objectivist insanity. A new plague of Social Darwinism!

 

I have yet to see the Tea Party advocating for eliminating the following; TSA, Homeland Security, Patriot Act etc.

 

When I say Tea Party, I am referring to all right wing groups!

Edited June 6, 2012 by ralis

[Mark Foote]

The Tao is about the observation and study of nature and our relationship with. Tea Party followers are not concerned with nature but are in opposition to it. The Tea Party advocates condone the destruction of the environment by corporations at any cost. Pollution, destruction of forests, more carbon being emitted into the biosphere, are some of the parasitic functions of this Ayn Rand based objectivist insanity. A new plague of Social Darwinism!

 

I have yet to see the Tea Party advocating for eliminating the following; TSA, Homeland Security, Patriot Act etc.

 

When I say Tea Party, I am referring to all right wing groups!

 

Well said, IMO.

 

Boston harbor, "no taxation with or without representation!"- I think not. This Tea Party is really about taxation by monopoly capitalism in the form of hedge funds, large banks and corporations, for the benefit of the few as opposed to the many. And yet, the darling federal expenditure of the fascist crowd is imperiled; whatever will the party of "nay" say when the mandatory cuts are imminent, this fall? Does it matter to the Koch brothers that the cuts will throw this country and the rest of the world into a second recession, per the federal budget office? If not, then there will be a second recession, as surely as the critical Tea Party activists receive the majority of their funding from the Koch brothers.

 

"Four states were crucial to the success of any new government- Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York. Of these, New York was the most difficult casewith the strongest opposition. ... The New York convention abandoned its opposition to the Constitution in large part because a nineth state (New Hampshire) ratified during the Poughkeepsie debates, leaving New York with the prospect of lonely nationhood to itself." (from Gary Wills' introduction to the Federalist Papers, published by Bantam 1982)

 

Point being that all the way along, it was a combination of luck and circumstance that this country moved from the articles of confederation to a constitution in the first place.

[The Observer]

What are the correct political choices for anyone calling themselves a Taoist? I believe the choices are either one of selfish interest or the realization that all of us are not separate beings apart from each other and what we do has profound effects on others, as well as the biosphere.

 

Just wanted to start this discussion and will write more later.

 

Liberal when it needs to be. Conservative when it needs to be.

[joeblast]

Well said, IMO.

 

Boston harbor, "no taxation with or without representation!"- I think not. This Tea Party is really about taxation by monopoly capitalism in the form of hedge funds, large banks and corporations, for the benefit of the few as opposed to the many. And yet, the darling federal expenditure of the fascist crowd is imperiled; whatever will the party of "nay" say when the mandatory cuts are imminent, this fall? Does it matter to the Koch brothers that the cuts will throw this country and the rest of the world into a second recession, per the federal budget office? If not, then there will be a second recession, as surely as the critical Tea Party activists receive the majority of their funding from the Koch brothers.

 

"Four states were crucial to the success of any new government- Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York. Of these, New York was the most difficult casewith the strongest opposition. ... The New York convention abandoned its opposition to the Constitution in large part because a nineth state (New Hampshire) ratified during the Poughkeepsie debates, leaving New York with the prospect of lonely nationhood to itself." (from Gary Wills' introduction to the Federalist Papers, published by Bantam 1982)

r

Point being that all the way along, it was a combination of luck and circumstance that this country moved from the articles of confederation to a constitution in the first place.

if the government stops spending money at such ridiculous paces, we're in for a recession?? The only applicabiity that might have is if there was a resultant downward pressure on all sorts of things, as real value gets re-settled. All that really tells one is that government action has inflated the costs of all sorts of things. They either know what a farce current vale is or they just want the government gravy train to forever flow.

 

Nobody's addressing the fact that 40% of us gov spending is borrowed (heres where I'll tie it in apech) ...which means that it is necessarily going to have to shrink. No "solution" that does not include trimming back the all too generous entitlements winds up making mathematical sense. What is going to happen when the euro finishes blowing up and dying and the us bank's exposures really become manifest? The programs have fundamental flaws and if they are not addressed in a reasonable fashion it is not if but when will there be unresolvable fiscal problems.

 

Sorry but these questions of how we are going to trim these things needs too be asked, because it will happen sooner or later, and the sooner action is taken, the more options we have to deal with the issues. I know its a political hand grenade mentioning this, but as others have pointed out, "americans have far more government than they pay for...or are willing to pay for, for that matter."

 

But its only the heartless that ask these tough questions, its not going to blow up in the next 6 months so why even bother dealing with it.

 

I posit that our new consultant LZ would point this out, that even though "people rely on this" if it is plainly not fiscally sustainable, why should a government lie to its people in such a manner by saying this is some eternally beneficial thing? It only makes the pain more acute when it finally does get dealt with, after problems are pervasive.

 

 

V...gotta love the Nazi comparison...talk about jumpin the shark

[joeblast]

Well said, IMO.

 

Boston harbor, "no taxation with or without representation!"- I think not. This Tea Party is really about taxation by monopoly capitalism in the form of hedge funds, large banks and corporations, for the benefit of the few as opposed to the many. And yet, the darling federal expenditure of the fascist crowd is imperiled; whatever will the party of "nay" say when the mandatory cuts are imminent, this fall? Does it matter to the Koch brothers that the cuts will throw this country and the rest of the world into a second recession, per the federal budget office? If not, then there will be a second recession, as surely as the critical Tea Party activists receive the majority of their funding from the Koch brothers.

 

"Four states were crucial to the success of any new government- Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York. Of these, New York was the most difficult casewith the strongest opposition. ... The New York convention abandoned its opposition to the Constitution in large part because a nineth state (New Hampshire) ratified during the Poughkeepsie debates, leaving New York with the prospect of lonely nationhood to itself." (from Gary Wills' introduction to the Federalist Papers, published by Bantam 1982)

r

Point being that all the way along, it was a combination of luck and circumstance that this country moved from the articles of confederation to a constitution in the first place.

if the government stops spending money at such ridiculous paces, we're in for a recession?? The only applicabiity that might have is if there was a resultant downward pressure on all sorts of things, as real value gets re-settled. All that really tells one is that government action has inflated the costs of all sorts of things. They either know what a farce current vale is or they just want the government gravy train to forever flow.

 

Nobody's addressing the fact that 40% of us gov spending is borrowed (heres where I'll tie it in apech) ...which means that it is necessarily going to have to shrink. No "solution" that does not include trimming back the all too generous entitlements winds up making mathematical sense. What is going to happen when the euro finishes blowing up and dying and the us bank's exposures really become manifest? The programs have fundamental flaws and if they are not addressed in a reasonable fashion it is not if but when will there be unresolvable fiscal problems.

 

Sorry but these questions of how we are going to trim these things needs too be asked, because it will happen sooner or later, and the sooner action is taken, the more options we have to deal with the issues. I know its a political hand grenade mentioning this, but as others have pointed out, "americans have far more government than they pay for...or are willing to pay for, for that matter."

 

But its only the heartless that ask these tough questions, its not going to blow up in the next 6 months so why even bother dealing with it.

 

I posit that our new consultant LZ would point this out, that even though "people rely on this" if it is plainly not fiscally sustainable, why should a government lie to its people in such a manner by saying this is some eternally beneficial thing? It only makes the pain more acute when it finally does get dealt with, after problems are pervasive.

 

 

V...gotta love the Nazi comparison...talk about jumpin the shark

[Apech]

 

...

 

Nobody's addressing the fact that 40% of us gov spending is borrowed (heres where I'll tie it in apech) ...which means that it is necessarily going to have to shrink. No "solution" that does not include trimming back the all too generous entitlements winds up making mathematical sense. What is going to happen when the euro finishes blowing up and dying and the us bank's exposures really become manifest? The programs have fundamental flaws and if they are not addressed in a reasonable fashion it is not if but when will there be unresolvable fiscal problems.

 

...

 

Well thanks for tying me in ... I think. And congrats on mentioning the euro at least I understood that bit.

 

The eurozone is a disaster because it was an economic policy based on a) a political ideology b ) an attempt to rival the dollar as a currency of choice.

 

The only thing that makes any sense to me economically is that wealth is based on something ... either raw materials, products from those materials or services that people/countries need. That's it ... nothing else. Everything that governments do that does not accord with this is based on their own self interest or delusions of greatness. So I think economic policy has to be based on ways of creating wealth and not on speculation, currency manipulation, quantitive easing or anything else.

 

The Eurozone should be dismantled and each country should have its own currency which links directly to the GDP of that country. instead of waiting for Greece, then Portugal, Spain and Italy to tumble they should act now to deconstruct the whole edifice ... in as controlled and least expensive way that they can.

 

LZ would say go back to basics in the sense of study what makes this thing (the Global Economy) work and harmonize with it.

[thelerner]

if the government stops spending money at such ridiculous paces, we're in for a recession??

 

Nobody's addressing the fact that 40% of us gov spending is borrowed

V...gotta love the Nazi comparison...talk about jumpin the shark

I agree, ultimately the argument, We don't have the money- is the most powerful one. Yes there are wonderful things we can do, but we don't have the money. Its no virtue to give to good causes when you're heavily in debt (two trillion?) and are borrowing the money to do so.