[General_Zhaoyun]

Since Taoism advocates "Wu Wei Er Zhi" 无为而治 (meaning "do nothing to rule"), is it equal to anarchism (i.e. having no government). I seem to get the impression that Taoism had always wanted to leave everything according to nature's law or way (Dao 道), so it doesn't require any government to interfere.

Am I just guessing? Please comment and give your view on the above..

[caocao74]

In the 'Dao De Jing', it calls for governance but minimal, non-aggressive governmental involvement; almost invisible government in which legislation is minimal to allow the natural balance between opposing forces.
Anarchism advocates the removal of all government (Proudhon advocated the removal of all property ownership, while Tolstoy proposed religion without a church), allowing the people to live through cooperation (like libertarianism).
I personally feel the main difference is Taoism calls for minimal government while Anarchism asks for no government at all.

[General_Zhaoyun]

Thanks for the explanation..CaoCao74..

[caocao74]

General_Zhaoyun, on Dec 27 2004, 05:08 PM, said:

Thanks for the explanation..CaoCao74..
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no problems, the issue is probably more sophisticated but this was the main thing I remembered on the subject from 1st year philosophy

[Yun]

The famous saying about the Daoist ideal of governance is from the Daode Jing, supposedly by Laozi:

"Governing a large state is like cooking a fish." In other words, too much handling will spoil it.

So, the Daoists would be a little like the Republicans in the US today - opposed to an activist, interventionist 'big government' and preferring to let everyone get on with their own business. But then they would also be a little like the Democrats in that they think 'legislating morality' (as in trying to enforce a code of moral behaviour, like the Confucians) is more trouble than it's worth. To Daoists like Laozi and Zhuangzi, the moment you need to start emphasising morality, it means that society has become immoral.

On the other hand, Laozi also wrote in the last part of the Daode Jing that the best kind of society was a small community that was cut off from all other communities, such that the only knowledge they had of each other was the barking of dogs and crowing of roosters in neighbouring villages. If that community could do without money or writing or weapons, so much the better, since those would corrupt the original innocent nature of man. So you could say that Laozi would not be interested in our concepts of 'modernity', 'progress', 'nation', or 'globalisation'.

[janz]

han dynasty han wen di and han jing di followed this idea. worked very well.

in practice, "Wu Wei Er Zhi" means less tax, less draft, less punishment, maintain justice, be defensiven with xiongnu and privatization of government controlled business(salt, iron, even minting currency).

in fact, with out han wen di and han jing di \'s efforts, han wu di wouldn't be able to expand so much.

[yehzhaofeng]

AHh, way of Tao. WOuld Taoism be more conservative?