Are Taoists really just Libertarians

[Karl]

It's funny how one thing leads to another and then something pops out of the mass of collected information like an unexpected treat.

 

Here is a paper by the late, great, libertarian Murray Rothbard in which he proposes that Lao Tzu was really a libertarian philosopher forced to live under Chinese rule and this lead to retreatism as the only-and desperate-alternative.

 

He posits that it might well be that retreatism itself has become the over arching high ideal of Taoist followers instead of the libertarian philosophy that once under pinned it.

 

I wondered how I found my way here :-)

 

 

https://mises.org/system/tdf/9_2_3_0.pdf?file=1&type=document

[Marblehead]

I didn't read the entire paper but of what I did it appeared he made a valid argument.

 

But I wouldn't call Lao Tzu's philosophy "retreatism" though but rather "minimalism".

 

Perhaps Lao Tzu was a "minimalist".  What would have been close to a conservative in the USA during the first half of the 1900s.

 

I'm not familiar enough with libertarian dogma to speak to it.

[Karl]

I didn't read the entire paper but of what I did it appeared he made a valid argument.

 

But I wouldn't call Lao Tzu's philosophy "retreatism" though but rather "minimalism".

 

Perhaps Lao Tzu was a "minimalist".  What would have been close to a conservative in the USA during the first half of the 1900s.

 

I'm not familiar enough with libertarian dogma to speak to it.

 

That makes Lao Tzu a Randian Objectivist :-) which is exactly what I think. Rand had her imaginary 'Galts Gulch' and Lao Tzu had his practices. Both, at heart is Liberty by retreatist individualism. It is 'in effect' head in the sand thinking.

 

Rothbard was a true anarchist. He was of the belief that there should be no state at all. Rand believed in Minarchy ( some state/government but not supported through taxation but lottery/charity).

 

I think something other. There are people who wish to live under and subject others to total collectivism. I think these people should have their wish, as should minarchists and anarchists. No one should have the right to impose their will against another person. I don't object to communists or fascists as long as they don't impose their idealism upon my life.

[Marblehead]

 I don't object to communists or fascists as long as they don't impose their idealism upon my life.

But they always will.  We both know that.

 

New term for me = Minarchy.  Yeah, maybe Lao Tzu was a Minarchist.  Granted I would be.

 

If Rothbard was a true anarchist he never saw his ideal come true.  This could be said to be sad.

 

I like the term "Minimalist" better than I do "Minarchist".  Easier to define, I think.

[Karl]

But they always will.  We both know that.

 

New term for me = Minarchy.  Yeah, maybe Lao Tzu was a Minarchist.  Granted I would be.

 

If Rothbard was a true anarchist he never saw his ideal come true.  This could be said to be sad.

 

I like the term "Minimalist" better than I do "Minarchist".  Easier to define, I think.

 

Rothbard was a true anarchist. It is a Rothbardian necessity to oppose all government constructs in whatever sense.

[Marblehead]

Rothbard was a true anarchist. It is a Rothbardian necessity to oppose all government constructs in whatever sense.

Yeah, that's where I fail in my Anarchy.  I actually do see a need for at least a minimalist form of government.  I think Albert Camus would have been an Anarchist such as Rothbard but he never really spoke about it directly.

 

But I still hold to my individual anarchism.  I don't want others "telling" me what I have to do as long as I am not violating the laws of the society I am living in.

[Karl]

Yeah, that's where I fail in my Anarchy.  I actually do see a need for at least a minimalist form of government.  I think Albert Camus would have been an Anarchist such as Rothbard but he never really spoke about it directly.

 

But I still hold to my individual anarchism.  I don't want others "telling" me what I have to do as long as I am not violating the laws of the society I am living in.

 

Yet laws do tell you what you must do and these laws are made by others.

 

[Apech]

Glad you guys are getting along so well.

 

I thought the paper (or the part of it on Taoism) was disappointingly brief and superficial.  No mention of the way and it's virtue and what that might mean.  I think some people will take from anywhere to prop up their own beliefs, like thieves and robbers in fact.

[Karl]

Glad you guys are getting along so well.

 

I thought the paper (or the part of it on Taoism) was disappointingly brief and superficial.  No mention of the way and it's virtue and what that might mean.  I think some people will take from anywhere to prop up their own beliefs, like thieves and robbers in fact.

 

Not at all. Rothbard isn't discussing Taoism-only it origin. I think the New Testament and the story of Jesus is similar. Except Jesus was a lot more anarchic and revolutionary. Rothbard is saying Lao Tzu decided on a kind of introversion as opposed to any form of active revolution. He wasn't trying to explain the methodology of Taoism.

 

I think you are being quite unfair with your comment 'propping up beliefs'. Every philosophy and philosopher naturally stands on the shoulders of those who have gone before and adds their own observations to the mix. It's one reason why I could never pick a philosophy as being 'perfect'. I find agreement in some very diverse philosophies which I might generally disagree with, and some disagreements with those that come very close to philosophies closest to my own. Isn't everything that is creative this way ?

 

As an observation, I see that many people who don't think this way seem to require a more rigid philosophy and practice. They follow a more Platonic path and are less tolerant of philosophical diversity. Generally it is those who support a more totalitarian, collectivist view point and are pointed towards socialism in some form.

 

Those who are more diverse are more Aristotlian and democratic. They are more flexible and less polarised, much less militant and aggressive.

[Apech]

Not at all. Rothbard isn't discussing Taoism-only it origin. I think the New Testament and the story of Jesus is similar. Except Jesus was a lot more anarchic and revolutionary. Rothbard is saying Lao Tzu decided on a kind of introversion as opposed to any form of active revolution. He wasn't trying to explain the methodology of Taoism. I think you are being quite unfair with your comment 'propping up beliefs'. Every philosophy and philosopher naturally stands on the shoulders of those who have gone before and adds their own observations to the mix. It's one reason why I could never pick a philosophy as being 'perfect'. I find agreement in some very diverse philosophies which I might generally disagree with, and some disagreements with those that come very close to philosophies closest to my own. Isn't everything that is creative this way ? As an observation, I see that many people who don't think this way seem to require a more rigid philosophy and practice. They follow a more Platonic path and are less tolerant of philosophical diversity. Generally it is those who support a more totalitarian, collectivist view point and are pointed towards socialism in some form. Those who are more diverse are more Aristotlian and democratic. They are more flexible and less polarised, much less militant and aggressive.

 

It's very common for writers to pick and chose from ancient texts to support their theories instead of reading the text for itself.

[ChiForce]

It's very common for writers to pick and chose from ancient texts to support their theories instead of reading the text for itself.

Better yet...to practice Taoism and to cultivate the mind to realize the Tao.  Tao can not be defined and can not be named.  Hence, the title of this thread has already become non-Tao. 

[Karl]

It's very common for writers to pick and chose from ancient texts to support their theories instead of reading the text for itself.

 

That may well be true, but Rothbard is hardly just 'a writer'. He is a well researched historian, philosopher and economist. He will have read the texts thoroughly to have reached that conclusion.

 

I think this is more about the challenge to your own beliefs which is ridiculous as he doesn't challenge contemporary Taoism in any sense. As I read it Lao Tze is quoted by many anti-authoritarians so this isn't exactly a new discovery.

[Apech]

That may well be true, but Rothbard is hardly just 'a writer'. He is a well researched historian, philosopher and economist. He will have read the texts thoroughly to have reached that conclusion. I think this is more about the challenge to your own beliefs which is ridiculous as he doesn't challenge contemporary Taoism in any sense. As I read it Lao Tze is quoted by many anti-authoritarians so this isn't exactly a new discovery.

 

 

What beliefs of mine is he challenging?

[ChiForce]

That may well be true, but Rothbard is hardly just 'a writer'. He is a well researched historian, philosopher and economist. He will have read the texts thoroughly to have reached that conclusion. I think this is more about the challenge to your own beliefs which is ridiculous as he doesn't challenge contemporary Taoism in any sense. As I read it Lao Tze is quoted by many anti-authoritarians so this isn't exactly a new discovery.

Gosh...is he a Taoist?  Has he realized the Tao through his cultivation?  Is another aspect of Taoism you have gotten it wrong.  One can not be a Taoist or an expert in Taoism just because they can read the Taoist text.    His mind needs to realize the Tao.  He has to cultivate.  He has to circulate the Chi!!!!!  I can say one thing.  90% of the Taoist teaching essence is from the cultivation process and internal alchemy alone, and through the lineage transmission.      

[Karl]

What beliefs of mine is he challenging?

 

That isn't a question I can answer. I can only observe the reaction and not the thought that preceded it.

[Karl]

Gosh...is he a Taoist?  Has he realized the Tao through his cultivation?  Is another aspect of Taoism you have gotten it wrong.  One can not be a Taoist or an expert in Taoism just because they can read the Taoist text.    His mind needs to realize the Tao.  He has to cultivate.  He has to circulate the Chi!!!!!  I can say one thing.  90% of the Taoist teaching essence is from the cultivation process and internal alchemy alone, and through the lineage transmission.      

 

He isn't a Taoist and neither is there anything in his essay that suggests it. However, I have just read the same text he obviously read and clearly it does suggest a libertarian approach. I'm presuming you have all read that text (at least the translation as there probably isn't many of us that can read ancient languages) and it's not as though it's exactly difficult to understand the parts which are concerned directly with rulers, taxation, Liberty, use of force, interventionism. The rest is more obscure as is the way with ancient texts where context, time and language are an issue.

[Apech]

That isn't a question I can answer. I can only observe the reaction and not the thought that preceded it.

 

In that case I can say he doesn't challenge any of my beliefs.

[thelerner]

Whoa 25 (academic) pages, something about Le Bouche writings in the 1530's.   Screw reading that. 

 

I'll just say Yes, Taoist tend to be libertarians and add Taoist also tend to go against stereotypes too.  People who try to make hard and fast rules about individual taoists are often wrong and taken by surprise. 

[ChiForce]

He isn't a Taoist and neither is there anything in his essay that suggests it. However, I have just read the same text he obviously read and clearly it does suggest a libertarian approach. I'm presuming you have all read that text (at least the translation as there probably isn't many of us that can read ancient languages) and it's not as though it's exactly difficult to understand the parts which are concerned directly with rulers, taxation, Liberty, use of force, interventionism. The rest is more obscure as is the way with ancient texts where context, time and language are an issue.

If you concern about the political and social aspects of the Chinese culture, you should study Confucianism instead.  Confucianism is conservative and feudal, fyi.    Taoism is more about one's existentialism in relation to nature.  You should know by now that I don't have to read every single Taoist text to know and to realize the Tao....because the realization happens in my dreams and in my meditations.  That's far more Taoist than any Taoist texts.  

 

Oh, recently, I was reading this...very helpful...

 

  http://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/Taoist-Yoga-Alchemy-and-Immortality.pdf

[Karl]

In that case I can say he doesn't challenge any of my beliefs.

 

Then perhaps you have missed an opportunity.

 

[ChiForce]

Whoa 25 (academic) pages, something about Le Bouche writings in the 1530's.   Screw reading that. 

 

I'll just say Yes, Taoist tend to be libertarians and add Taoist also tend to go against stereotypes too.  People who try to make hard and fast rules about individual taoists are often wrong and taken by surprise. 

After all, the Tao can be named is not the Tao...heheheh.... 

[Karl]

If you concern about the political and social aspects of the Chinese culture, you should study Confucianism instead.  Confucianism is conservative and feudal, fyi.    Taoism is more about one's existentialism in relation to nature.  You should know by now that I don't have to read every single Taoist text to know and to realize the Tao....because the realization happens in my dreams and in my meditations.  That's far more Taoist than any Taoist texts.  

 

Oh, recently, I was reading this...very helpful...

 

  http://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/Taoist-Yoga-Alchemy-and-Immortality.pdf

 

Too late. I've read the text. :-)

[Karl]

After all, the Tao can be named is not the Tao...heheheh.... 

 

The Tao is named, it isn't defined. You should stop learning and give it a chance :-)

[Apech]

Then perhaps you have missed an opportunity.

 

Nope.

[Karl]

Nope.

 

Only the person who has missed an opportunity would deny they have missed the opportunity :-)