Buddhist Anarchism: Are Governments Moral?
posted by Lightfiend | May 1, 2010
- Login or register to post comments
- Print this page
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Propeller
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Icerocket
Is government a legitimate means of improving society or can humans influence each others' behavior in more effective ways?
Violence Breeds Violence
More and more through science we are confirming the Buddha's teachings on karma. In an article last month at Wired.com, kindness was shown to breed further acts of kindness.
Experimenters created a game where "selfishness made more sense than cooperation," however, "acts of giving were tripled over the course of the experiment by other subjects who were directly or indirectly influenced to contribute more." Here is a visual representation of those effects:
Understanding karma, I believe this multiplying effect should also hold true for acts of violence, coercion, or threat. If we treat people poorly, they are likely to treat us poorly in return. Therefore, evidence seems to show that we should follow the good ol' golden rule: Treat others as you would like to be treated.
The Non-Aggression Principle
As I understand it, the Buddhist moral notion of karma is congruent with libertarian-anarchist ethic of the non-aggression principle - which states that all initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons is inherently illegitimate.
Although Buddha obviously cannot comment on the political theories past his time, I think if he understood our current understanding of government he would see that it is in strict violation of this principle.
Libertarian anarchists consider non-voluntary taxes (a process used to fund almost any government that has ever existed) to be a form of initiated aggression. Therefore, no matter the well-intentioned goals of politicians, the very means of government is seen as immoral. In Ayn Rands words, "Force and mind are opposite; morality ends where a gun begins."
I think Buddha too would agree that you cannot create a moral society through the immorality of government coercion. Only free choice builds moral fiber. Even when people are forced to pay for others health care, housing, or food, they are in the process of becoming slaves, not saints. Not only is this a morally illegitimate way of building the society we want, it is impossible. In Buddhism the means don't justify the ends: the means determine the ends.
Lead By Example, Not By Force
Karma teaches reciprocity. Only by being the change we wish to see in the world can we make a positive difference. We don't create society by stepping into a voting booth once a year, we create society through our day-to-day actions and how we treat others. We lead by example; and when we do this, we inspire people's hearts and minds to do the same.
An individual's freedom is a prerequisite for all moral behavior. You cannot force or threat others to be good, you can only guide them through example and reason. People too can be guided the wrong way through example and reason. Morality is always and everywhere a battle of ideas. It starts in our minds and it spreads through our actions.
Government: Old Idea, Bad Idea, or Both?
The need to govern others is an ancient idea: master and servant, leader and follower, boss and worker are all distinctions buried in our unconscious. It is not just an old idea, but an idea we often take for granted. Modern America condemns it's history with slavery but doesn't yet see the the shapes and forms it takes through the veil of democratic government; in which, even Thomas Jefferson considered "mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Today this is sometimes referred to as tyranny of the majority. To learn more I recommend Hans Hermann Hoppe's great book, "Democracy: The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order."
Schools somewhat condition us to accept government; democracy being the glorified system of "fairness." Many people I know find it hard to even imagine a peaceful society without any form of government. Instead they hear "anarchy" and imagine Molotov cocktails being thrown through windows - complete chaos and rebellion. But the truth is humans self-organize all of the time without the help of government bureaucracy. Even children can put together community baseball games without authoritarian oversight. The Austrian economist Friedrich A. Hayek would probably draw a parallel between this kind of social behavior and the "spontaneous order" of a laissez-faire economy.
My point is that the absence of government is not equal to a state of disorder. Humans organize voluntarily (out of their own free will) all of the time; of all people, Buddhists should recognize this inherent interconnectedness between individuals. So we shouldn't need government to command our actions like some sort of ant colony - our ability to get along with others is a built into our humanity.
Am I suggesting that anarchy is a utopia? It may sound like it, but I assure you that I am not. How can you expect a perfect society from imperfect individuals? You can't. It's not realistic. But it is realistic to believe that humans can coexist peacefully without big brother government. Sure, there will still be crime and evils in the world and we will have to deal with those accordingly. But government may not be the answer to poverty, drug abuse, or even murder. Perhaps before looking to our paternal state for all the solutions to society we should take a deep gaze into ourselves; and see how we as individuals are personally responsible for the world around us.
If you liked this post please consider visiting my blog
Comments
The Chaos of Rule
— May 01, 2010
Even when children spontaneously put together a "pick-up" game of sports, there is always natural leaders and followers ... those who pick first .. those who are picked last.
Oneness does not mean "lack of natural difference" ... every species has natural pecking orders.
Over time things always have a way of balancing out ... peacefully .. or through war.
Peace does not necessarily mean no argumentation ... but creative argumentation.
The "silver" rule being only take what one actually needs {basic food clothing and shelter.
Without acheiving a natural organic sense of satisfaction with the basic necessities of life ... there is no "life philosophy" individually or collectively that will work "inside of Eden"
It is all "after-the-fact" rhetoric ...
My lover "governs" the nature of my service of touch ... my teacher governs my use of vocabulary as I learn the art of speech ... we are all in each others service to some degree ... and are being served to other degrees.
As long as there is genuine exchange based on the genuine command of actual atrributes ... seems only when we are forced beyond natural atrraction ... to "have" to serve or follow beyond "qualified guidance" ... that community goes sour
Genius of Jerk
Selective ‘ere since … the passion for prop
‘poised not unlike … infinities stop
Within each without … ‘without each within
quantum upheaval … ‘underneath pragmatic skin
Fiction{s} of strange … ‘such the virtual notion
‘as actuality cries … from it’s own nescient potion
Frequently rare … ‘the un-abiding sorrow
‘happiness charged … by only tomorrow
On your mark … ‘set … the ever-readied tow
‘blown-off peer … ‘inspirational foe
Suffocates boredom … ‘as if debt without trace
the “new world order” … ‘gone without trace
Momentary trial … ‘of only the “next”
‘previous mention … ‘mindlessly hexed
Unless serious … ‘suffer … such toying with time
‘dimensional forge … space without rhyme
Impregnated place … ‘of what-is / ‘thou art
policy’s plea … ‘to cooperate apart
Togetherness shunned … ‘as if misnomer’ d clause
individual search … ‘away only from “cause”
Humanity attempts … ‘each sociological norm
adjustable pathos … ‘to collectively form …
Each principle peak … ‘into unified … frenzied quirk
‘chaos of rule … ‘lest genius of jerk … {as in jerk away from}
Pippalayana
You are right. I am not
— May 01, 2010
You are right. I am not against social hierarchies in and of themselves, only when there roles are coerced onto others. I don't consider Democracy a legitimate "leader"-"follower" social order because you don't ever get the choice to vote for "no leader." The idea of elections (of which I truly believe is an illusion of choice) implicitly says you have to choose between government A or government B --- but we don't get to ever decide if we still want any government, period. The only difference between a democracy and a monarchy is that in a democracy we get to choose a new tyrant every 4 years.
I see government as an ever-growing cancer that we have mistakened for a cure... and I sincerely and rationally fear the direction society is heading.
I am against social hierarchies
— May 02, 2010
Social hierarchies codify a leader-follower relationship which usually transcends the conditions in which one person is a leader and another a follower: gaining higher status in a hierarchy leads to a power differential if the position is enforced. That power differential is then used in order to concrete or increase the power differential. Hierarchy is social stratification by force.
True leadership is acquired and then maintained by consensus. In more human-scale societies where the codification is more fluid due to greater transparency of the social structure leaders can never assume that they will maintain their position - those young bucks are more able to depose a leader who is not there by consensus.
More specifically, in a small group of people in simple goal directed behaviour leadership tends to be achieved through consensus 'you are good at that task so today we will follow you' ' Tomorrow we may need a different leader for a different task'.
Societies in which social class emerges are societies where class is abstract and of little use other than to create leaders whose attributes are arbitrary or at best 'qualities of leadership'. Those qualities of leadership tend to be mentally coercive and manipulative at best (Social Dominance Oriented personality) and Right Wing Authoritarian at worst. Challenge leaders' sense of natural order in society (with them at the top) and oppression is stepped up.
So my point: only in complex societies is an abstract and arbitrary stratification developed, hierarchy and high division-of-labour leads to codified leadership (e.g. the forced choice between democratic representatives) which is enforced. Without this enforcement people would self-organise their leaders based on day-to-day functions. Rigid stratification and codified leadership enables a technological high division-of-labour society.
I generally agree although I
— May 03, 2010
I generally agree although I bet you don't acknowledge capitalism as "leadership achieved through consensus," as I would.
To me, an entrepreneur is not an oppressor. He organizes resources through his property (which we will assume he has rightfully acquired) and through voluntary labor. He then must sell his product to willing consumers in order to stay in business. There is nothing inherently coercive about this process of exchange.
The libertarian socialist notion (in the vein of Noam Chomsky) of capitalism causing "wage slavery," I find to be unfounded.
Of course, it is easy to look around the world today and see that we are being forced into corporatism. But I would tell you that this has only been made possible through the state. Early America was a fairly class-less society in the sense that there were few (if any) barriers of entry from becoming an entrepreneur/capitalist.
Nowadays it is ridiculously difficult to start your own business OR live self-sufficiently (think Thoreau's "Walden," although some Americans do still live off-the-grid). This is not an outcome of laissez-faire capitalism but of state capitalism (where, like in any state, men are slaves of men).
It is the existence of government that keeps social classes so defined. They depend on creating that separateness (that fear and insecurity) in order to justify their actions.
I think we are both in the same ballpark, it just comes down to an issue of economics.
Lightfiend, I happen to
— May 02, 2010
Lightfiend, I happen to highly agree with your position on this matter. The truth is that governments, at their inception, were (probably) based on well-meaning intentions, which are to regulate and organize society according to individual's needs and abilities. The problem of course is that governments have been proven to operate like cancer cells. They multiply and begin taking on the role of a parasite. It begins to suck the life out of its host (which is society). This is what has happened today. Governments thoughout the world have grown to such a mammoth level that they've become intoxicated with their own power and ego. When left unchecked, the parasitic cancer develops to such a level that it actually attempts to subvert its host and become the host itself (in its mind) to the detriment of the original cells. That's precisely what has been happening over the last few centuries. Only now are people beginning to realize just how advanced this parasitic monster has become. We're currently at the point to where the cancer is in its very advanced stages and is now posing a clear and present threat to the host (Earth and humanity). Some claim that "anarchy" is the downfall of society. What we have today is the polar opposite. The elites of the world have taken their authoritian ideology to such extremes that the human community itself in now in grave danger.
I would live in an anarchist world before accepting the type of world we have now any day. At least that way there'd be a CHANCE of success. Currently we are being lead down the path of inevitable doom by the decisions of a very few members of the human race...members who've become utterly psychotic with power. This is what happens to a race that puts its complete faith in hierarchical institutions...the worst of the worst float to the top of the pyramid and rule us all...even those who are awake to their dealings. And the vast majority of its loyal subjects can't even begin to fathom the reality that is all around them. Right now we are in the most precarious position the human race has ever been in, and it's BECAUSE of the existance of centralized governmental authorities and their pathetically brainwashed protectors (armies, police, etc.). Aside from divine/interdimensional intervention, I don't see any way out of this mess. We are in far too deep at this point and most humans collectively refuse to even glance at any of these possiblities, all under the axiom "I refuse to believe in conspiracies". Meaning, they refuse to believe that their parents (goverments) don't love them back. And those of us who ARE aware of what's really happening around us are too powerless to do anything about it. Why? Because almost nobody will listen to us. The elites have planned out their agenda exceedingly well and now have us in their pockets. Yes, governments are indeed the downfall of the human race...by design apparently.
sounds good in theory...
— May 02, 2010
this is a very well thought, well intentioned post, and I really like the ideas that you put forth here paralleling buddhist karma and natural anarchy, but there seems to be one inconsistency that i can't get past-
based on your non-aggression principle and the idea that doing harm will cause harmful tendencies to reciprocate back, how could the move be made to an anarchist society (which i agree with you sounds cool) without some sort of violent government overthrow?
Yes, the constitution does say that we have the duty to overthrow any government that begins oppressing the people and stuff, but with the endless layers of protection and support from the public elite and the military and all those other people, how could we ever stop our democracy from perpetuating itself without a totally violent civil war-type overthrow?
and suppose that it does happen somehow, then who's to stop the street gang or organization or militia (or foreign power) with the most resources and firepower from taking over as real dictators-
after all, we do live in a world where people know that the idea of controlling a country is possible, and it seems like many would jump on that the first chance that they got...
basically what i'm saying is, I like that idea just as much as you do, but it almost seems like we've reached the point of no return- where if one government steps (or falls) down, another will immediately try and take its place, causing war, oppression, and instability all across the board
do you have any thoughts on how that might be avoided?
cuz if so, people need to hear them!
“No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” -Albert Einstein
Einstein was right
— May 03, 2010
Let me start with your Einstein quote. What I am specifically trying to do is raise consciousness, because I believe the war between freedom and tyranny is always and everywhere a war of IDEAS.
If the government was violently overthrown today, we would not automatically have an anarchocapitalist society. The moral foundation isn't yet there. People's minds change first, then their actions. To me one of the best ways to non-violently protest against government is to just NOT VOTE. How can a government allege to its citizens when its citizens no longer accept the role of their government?
On the other hand, elections may also be our savior. If we can vote in "anarchists" to slowly dismantle government programs then maybe that is a legitimate means of eliminating this cancer. But can politicians be expected to do this? (maybe if they were all Ron Paul).
Social enlightenment. Whatever it is that is going to get us to anarchy it will be that. How long will it take? I can't tell. I certainly don't bet on seeing it in my lifetime. But is it worth talking about NOW? Yes, because what other way are we to plant the seeds for this revolution?
"When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty." - Thomas Jefferson
If the government tramples on our rights enough, we absolutely do have a right to violently fight back. This is not against the non-aggression principle because government IS the aggressor.
How we could possibly fight such a big military? I would have no idea, that is why I preach non-violent solutions :) But....nothing about my philosophy prohibits self-defense. Let that be made loud and clear.
well anarchy is just too far
— May 03, 2010
well anarchy is just too far ahead of "our time", at this moment. I'm sure if you got the best mathematicians to work it out they could figure on something like what you are doing here. I think it is interesting what you did with the graph, took a second of desire of interpereting it to understand it. but it's a cool approach to actually looking at life logically.
Graph was from the link. But
— May 03, 2010
Graph was from the link. But yes, it is a very good visual representation of the reciprocity of actions.
As far as mathematicians being able to work things out...I am not quite sure what you mean. Math has nothing directly to do with freedom. It seems what you are suggesting is some kind of technocracy, which is completely contrary to a free society. I don't believe in "elites" of any kind.
But yes, I do think anarchy is way too far ahead of our time. Good point.
that graph is like one of those cybernetic maps...
— May 03, 2010
Anarchy requires a certain level of sophistication from the participants. Like, as you noted in your blog, a capacity to self reflect on values, and the value of currently in place social and governmental forms. I don't think most humans are up to it.
I'm still trying to get my head around anarchism. I'm reading "No Gods, No Masters" right now. I suggest it to anyone else who wishes to delve deeper into the subject.
Its interesting that you use Buddhism here to support Anarchism, when in fact, in certain respects, they are worlds apart. For example, Stirner goes on about his, Authentic Egoist, and others who go on about Elitism. I think Buddhism, simply for its capacity to shed light on certain basic properties of the mind, can pretty much be aligned with anything, but doesn't necessarily make it a good fit with anything.
Buddhist anarchism
— May 03, 2010
I am certainly not the first to see parallels between Buddhism and anarchism. There is an entry for it on Wikipedia. The composer and philosophy John Cage was a proponent too.
The way I see Buddhist morality there is no place for government at all, which is inherently coercive in nature.
Thanks for your comment! I will look into that book!
I made it clear that I
— May 03, 2010
I made it clear that I wasn't speaking on the Buddha's behalf (he couldn't possibly know about any political philosophy past his time).
Any views he did have on government, (economic stimulus through taxes or price controls) are incredibly out-dated ideas (which have been proven again and again overtime not to work).
It would be hard to tell what his beliefs would be in the current zeitgeist of our times, and in particular if he understood laissez-faire economics in light of Austrian and classical liberal theory of the mid-1800s-early 1900s, which modern economics (Keynesianism in particular) has still failed to learn from.
Buddha being skillfully mindful and an incredible critical thinker would not have bought the logical positivist philosophy that currently plagues science. I imagine he would be much more interested in a methodological individualist approach to social sciences like psychology and economics. I am betting he would be a Misesian, not a Marxist.
In short, if Buddha was around today I doubt he would be a proponent of the same economic theories he was thousands of years ago. We have learned many things since then.
"If the Buddha was around
— May 04, 2010
"If the Buddha was around today I believe he'd have about the same outlook that he did in his day. The whole reason he was able to travel and teach people for about Buddhism for 50 years was because he was absolutely no threat to any established authority."
Do you consider Noam Chomsky or me to be a threat to established authority? Probably not, one can talk about anarchism without wanting to start a civil war (especially if that anarchism is built on peace and tolerance).
You could too say the Dalai Lama has gotten himself in a bit of trouble with questioning authority but he is still welcome to travel and teach almost anywhere (probably traveling much, much more than Buddha could during his time).
"Anarchism would work great for a society composed of only sophisticated enlightened people. What are you going to do with all of the selfish-greedy-un-enlightened people under anarchy?"
What are we going to do with all the selfish-greedy unenlightened people today? I certainly don't see government handling the situation very well. They are fighting fire with fire. Governments prefer guns, I prefer reason. It is not idealistic. Look at the social change sparked by guys like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. - no violence whatsoever!
"BUddha was evolutionary, not revolutionary. He wasn't concerned with toppling governments, he wanted to teach people how to be happy, one person at a time."
Yes, of course, but that doesn't mean the Buddhist moral doctrine can't shed light on how to build a more peaceful society. There is no social change outside of "one person at a time." Society is only a group of individuals.
I don't find it appropriate to frame this argument as "idealism" vs. "realism," we are each responsible for the reality we create. Just because you can't imagine a society without government doesn't mean it can't happen, perhaps it is more revealing of your lack of foresight.
"Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps, down new roads, armed with nothing but their own vision." - Ayn Rand
"Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule." - Buddha
"Chomsky is a political
— May 04, 2010
"Chomsky is a political activist. He works to affect political change. That is by definition threatening the established authority."
Everyone in politics is about political change, are they all threats too?
But let's assume that he is a threat (he is an anarchist after all), why is he invited all over the world to share his intellect? Maybe because "society" =/= "government," and people are interested in his ideas.
"Dalai Lama was the political leader of the people of Tibet, from which he has been in exile for 50+ years. Using him to argue against my point seems to support my argument, not yours. He's not some kind of leader of Buddhism, he's the leader of the Tibetan people. He's a horrible example of someone who is free to travel because he's exiled. You're using the example of someone who hasn't been able to go home got 50 years because of his politics to illustrate unfettered mobility."
I knew this, but he is still free to travel just about anywhere else and preach what he believes. Even when China advices other countries (including the U.S). not to speak with the Dalai Lama...they still do it. My point: he can speak out against a government authority and still be relatively free to say whatever he wants anywhere else in the world (even when a leading world power tells countries not to do it).
Besides, given the technology and transportation we have today, the DL has arguably visited dozens of more countries than Buddha ever could during his time.
But I think we are getting off track here. The big idea here is it is possible to be an advocate of anarchism and not come off threatening. It is not a philosophy that has to push people away. The only reason it does is because people are so unfamiliar with the idea of "no government."
So, you're premise that the Buddha was only able to share his wisdom because he was sympathetic to the establishment just doesn't bite for me. And it is certainly not true of modern times.
I am not saying the society of today is ready for anarchy, but that it is the only moral path there is to take...if we don't end up having our governments destroy ourselves before then.
Buddhism
— May 08, 2010
The consequence of learning Buddhism is a code of morality, the practice of Girl Scouts is not. Governments are tightly intertwined with a society's moral code. They effect how people behave. While the Buddha may have strictly focused on the individual, his findings have implications toward society as a whole (because, after all, we are just a bunch of individuals - "society" is just an abstraction).
The Health Care Reform Bill
— May 11, 2010
The government have made lots of decisions and have passed many bills to regain the economic stability, yet people are struggling. Let's take for instance the Health Care Reform Bill. It is nevertheless in its infancy; still major corporations almost everywhere seem to be finding loop holes to get around it. The top honchos of companies like AT&T, Sprint, and the health insurance companies chose to discover ways to get past specific laws such as: requiring everyone within the business be insured, accepting kids with pre existing conditions, and other things they don’t like. One such discovery from AT&T is that by not offering health coverage to their associates and just paying the Government charges they would really be saving $4.1 billion a year. To me it sounds like the new health care reform bill will again be to make the little guy suffer when the large one gets richer.
