>"Daoists consider the duty of a ruler as that of protecting with minimal
>interference his subjects from harm, thus avoiding the overriding injury
>that excessive intervention would bring.
>A truly wise ruler should act in the way nature's unseen hand gently
>protects the good, the definition of which is complex and
>philosophical. The word: governance (zhi) in Chinese is composed of the
>
>root sign of water (shui) and the modifying sign of platform (tai),
>suggesting that to govern is similar to preserving stability of a
>floating platform on water.
Then again, also in Latin the "gubernator" is the helmsman.
> Excessive and unbalanced interference, even
>when motivated by good intention, does not always produce good results.
The "laissez-faire" spirit of Taoism is often stressed by advocates of free-market-reform in China. See, e.g.: http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj18n1-10.html .
[...]
>Daoists consider Confucian reliance on the Code of Rites (Liji) to guide
>socio-political behavior as oppressive and self-defeating. The Code of
>Rites is the ritual compendium as defined by Confucius (551-479 B.C.) to
>prescribe proper individual behavior in a hierarchical society. Daoists
>regard blind Confucian penchant for moralistic coercion as misguided.
>Such coercion neglects the true power of roushu (flexible method).
Although, in my opinion, the conservativism of Confucianism is often overstated. Let's not forget that (unlike what claimed by the Legalist School, whose members happily buried Confucians alive) the Confucian ruler receives a conditional mandate that is subject, so to speak, to "performance reviews" by the people. Confucianism is highly meritocratic, and abhors inherited privilege and absolute powers. Mencius, in particular, says that in the state "the people are the most important element; the spirits of the land and the grain are secondary; and the sovereign is the last", and claims a right to revolution and even regicide against corrupt or ineffective rulers. Interestingly, Mencius also stressed equal distribution of land as the basis of a good government.
[...]
>Myrdal's conclusion would appear valid superficially, given the
>coincident of indisputable existence of conditions of poverty in the
>region at the time of his study and the pervasive influence of Buddhism
>in Southeast Asian culture, until the question is asked as to why,
>whereas Buddhism has dominated Southeast Asia for more than a
>millennium, pervasive poverty in the region would only make its
>appearance after the arrival of Western Imperialism in the nineteenth
>century?
I wouldn't be so sure about this, if nothing else for lack of reliable statistics: and the very conclusions of the Gautama Buddha equating life with suffering appear to be at odd with such "golden age" mythology. Myrdal's error, more likely, was in the direction of the causal arrow, as it often happens with victims of economic fallacies. To me, Buddhism's insistence on personal responsibility in the process of enlightenment appears positively bourgeois and individualistic, compared with the rigid caste system congenial to the Hindu religion from which Buddhism deviated.
Anyway, a common mistake made in the West is to equate philosophical schools with the religions bearing the same name. There is very little in common between Taoist philosophy (Tao chia), teaching the acceptance of nature, and the eminently practical Taoist rites (Tao chiao), finalized to bend nature and destiny for personal advantages. The same is true for Buddhism, at least in its Chinese variant: those used to the rarefied metaphysics learned reading Buddhist books are often amazed discovering not only a strongly "do-ut-des" attitude in the temple visitors, but also a complicated politheistic pantheon. One of the most revered "Buddhist goddesses", for example, is Kwun Yam, a sort of "Our Lady of Mercy" whose statues bear a striking resemblance to those of the Virgin Mary. Another instance of the "Eternal Feminine", I guess.
Enzo