Politics, Wisdom that Confucius TaughtMay 13, 2009 4:49 pm
Wisdom that Confucius Taught Part 2
Even the ancient Chinese knew what it meant to Go John Galt.
Interpretation: Confucianism, amongst other things, is extremely averse to having too many laws. In fact, an ideal state will have no laws at all. The ideal ruler will lead by example, and others will be guided by this. There is plenty of criticism of Confucianism in the west, but we would be a lot better off if this concept was widely applied. When treasury officials don't pay their taxes, isn't it inevitable that the common people will do whatever they can to avoid it too?Confucius said, "When the ruler is correct, his will is put into effect without the need for official orders. When the ruler's person is not correct, he will not be obeyed no matter how many orders he issues." Analects XIII.6
[Another Instalink!] Welcome ... and don't forget to have a look around. You could, for example, use the categories to explore things like: further posts on "Wisdom that Confucius Taught" or "Wisdom of Heinlein" or just check out the "Weird" category for some head scratching material.
[Further clarification] Wisdom that Confucius Taught Part 3 further clarifies the Confucian attitude towards good governance.
Kung Fu Tzu also prescribed the basic concept that government spending should be forced to match tax revenues as opposed to tax revenues being ramped up to match spending or even worse; keynesian deficit spending to theoretically inflate away long term debt.
Unfortunately, Kung Fu Tzu failed to prophesize or fathom the existance of a welfare-state-voting-constituency.
Comment by k a 0 s — May 14, 2009 @ 3:16 am
I guess he wouldn't fly his 747 to Iowa in order to do a 1 hour photo op about saving energy. Huh?
Comment by Fat Man — May 14, 2009 @ 4:12 am
Try the Tao te Ching. Lao Tsu was even less into overbearing leaders.
Comment by silvermine — May 14, 2009 @ 4:45 am
So, um, officials are supposed to guess the will of the Ruler instead of following law and procedure?
Comment by John Lynch — May 14, 2009 @ 4:52 am
John Lynch = obtuse
Comment by Vercingetorix — May 14, 2009 @ 5:03 am
3.Try the Tao te Ching. Lao Tsu was even less into overbearing leaders.
Lao Tsu: If the sages don't die, grand larceny won't stop.
We have way too many sages in this country.
Comment by ic — May 14, 2009 @ 5:05 am
Well John, you could try the current administration's method of completely ignoring laws and procedures and hoping blindly partisan loyalists will keep voting for them.
Comment by Chad — May 14, 2009 @ 5:06 am
The mountains are high, the emperor far away.
Comment by Fred — May 14, 2009 @ 5:07 am
Confucius opposed the Chinese system known as Legalism, where lawyers ran the country. Maybe we need to teach him in this country
Comment by J. B. — May 14, 2009 @ 5:26 am
Your government is taking the tax dollars you are paying and giving them to GM. It is also laundering your tax dollars through AIG to send billion-dollar checks to millionaire foreign bankers in Germany and Switzerland. This is not sustainable.
Going Galt isn’t easy, but you can make a contribution in small, unexpected ways:
1) Defer your income - If you are already very well off, and you can afford to have your employer defer your income to a future year then try to DEFER YOUR INCOME. Work for free now and pay no income tax while they are in office, with the promise that you’ll get income down the road after they’ve been defeated. Then, make it clear to the government that you will continue to defer your income until the stolen money is returned to its rightful owners – US taxpayers.
2) Have your wife (or you) re-engage your children: Most spouses work for very little money by the time you pay for the child care expenses, plus the taxes on the second income, plus the additional taxes you pay on the first income because the second income pushes you into a higher tax bracket. RUN THE NUMBERS - you’ll be surprised just how very little your second wage-earner is actually making while someone else is raising your children poorly. QUIT THE SECOND JOB. Forgo that income. Defy Obama. Take back the tax dollars on that income and instead, invest it in your children’s future by raising them yourselves. Obama will turn blue with rage.
3) Stop spending! Unnecessary spending means you are paying unnecessary sales taxes. Sadly, most of the consumer products you are buying are made in China. Every dollar you spend on such items is shipped out of your country. So, STOP SHOPPING, especially at Wal-Mart, China’s preferred importer. All you are doing is creating sweatshops in Communist China and unemployment here at home. The side benefit is that you deprive badly run bloated state governments of sales tax revenue – and that’s half the fun of it.
4) Keep your cash income at home! It’s just a good idea to have a few thousand dollars at home anyway for emergencies. Banks are teetering on the brink. Do you want to get caught holding the bag? Get a fire safe for several hundred dollars and put away a few thousand dollars. Remember: What they can’t find, they can’t tax and they can’t redistribute.
5) Work for cash if you can. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner had it right: Cash income is frequently not taxed. Keep that cash at home, then spend it on everyday expenses, like our Treasury Secretary did for years and years and years. It’s how he became a millionaire. He knows the ins and outs. Follow his lead.
Going Galt doesn’t mean quitting your job and putting your family in jeopardy. It means depriving the government of your services in every way possible that you can without putting your family in jeopardy, while at the same time being very vocal about why you’re doing it.
Finally, there’s one final step: VOTE ALL OF THEM OUT. Republicans and Democrats alike. Our current leaders got us into this mess. It’s time to get them out.
Comment by jgalt — May 14, 2009 @ 7:05 am
As (#10) jgalt says (and he'd know, I guess,) to 'go John Galt' is to withdraw from an economy/society that is being run by the looters and parasites. The quote you give isn't relevant to that at all; which is odd, because Confucius really does recommend something very like that. In Analects 18.3 he says:
Comment by SteveGW — May 14, 2009 @ 7:57 am
St. Thomas Aquinas, refering to St Augustine, addresses this issue, emphasizing more on the perspective of the people governed rather than the governer.
Aquinas also elaborates, saying that the laws should be changed reluctantly, because the change in the law has, ipso facto, a damaging effect to the common good.
It's all very good advise, but unfortunately, widely ignored these days.
Here are the relevant passages in the Summa:
Whether human law should be changed in any way
Human law is a dictate of reason by which human actions are directed. Thus change in law has a twofold source: One on the part of reason, the other on the part of the men whose actions are regulated by law.
On the part of reason, it can be changed because it seems natural for human reason to advance gradually from the imperfect to the perfect. Thus we see in the speculative sciences that the early philosophers produced imperfect teachings which were later improved by their successors. So also in the practical realm, those who first tried to discover what was beneficial for human community, being unable to think everything through by themselves, created imperfect situations which were lacking in many ways. These institutions were then altered by subsequent lawmakers, producing institutions which departed from the common good in fewer instances.
On the part of the men whose activities are regulated by law, a law is rightly changed when there is a change in the conditions of men, for different things are expedient in accordance with different conditions. Augustine offers the following example: "If the people are moderate, responsible, and careful guardians of the common good, it is proper to enact a law allowing them to choose magistrates through whom the commonwealth can be administered. If, however, in time the people become corrupted and sell their votes, entrusting the government to scoundrels and criminals, they forfeit their power to elect public officials and the right devolves upon a few good men.
Whether human law should always be changed when something better is possible
It is right to change human law if such a change is conducive to the common good. Nevertheless, the very act of changing a law damages the common good to some extent, because custom encourages people to observe the law. Even minor changes seem to be major when they involve a breach of custom. Thus when a law is changed its binding force is diminished insofar as custom is abolished. For this reason, human law should never be changed unless the advantage to the common good resulting from its alteration outweighs the damage done by the change itself.
Such may be the case if some great and evident benefit is derived from the new law, or if some extreme emergency is occasioned by the fact that the existing law is clearly unjust or its observance extremely harmful new laws the benefit to be derived should be evident before one dispenses with a law that was long considered just.
Comment by Noah Nehm — May 14, 2009 @ 7:00 pm