316. Intervention or laissez faire in East and
West
Taoist
political philosophy is non-interventionist, libertarian, approaching
anarchism. It criticizes Confucian interventionism in ethical rules, civic and
familial values and the imposition of ceremonies. Taoism aims to avoid what it
considers to be artificial constructs (wuwei). Human design cannot cope
with the richness and variability of holistic nature. Such design is bound to
misfire and is in the way of natural processes that are best left to themselves.
This seems
analogous to the split, in the West, between socialist interventionism and
libertarian liberal laissez faire. However, a fundamental difference is that
the latter is based on views not of holistic nature but of freedom for
individuals. Those have a craving and see it as their right to exploit nature
to their material advantage. And that has dire consequences for the
environment.
However,
liberal libertarianism does recognize the natural urge in Man for gratification
and self-manifestation (and Nietzsche’s will to power). And in nature there is
not only harmony but also brutality in the struggle for survival. Taoism seems
hesitant to face those realities.
I side in
part with Confucianism and in part with Taoism. Such mixes have also arisen in
neo-confucianism, as I indicated in item 131 of this blog. I also object to the
constraining regimentation of Confucianism, which threatens the variety and
variability that are inherent in nature, evolution, humanity and society.
I think
there is some similarity between Taoist thought and modern evolutionary
thought, which I have endorsed in this blog. Like Taoism, the latter also
yields a need for restraint of the urge to engage in ‘intelligent design’.
For
example, and in particular, it is odd to try and plan programmes for innovation
while the crux of innovation is that it produces things that were unforeseeable
(or else it would not be innovation). By planning innovation one obstructs it.
So, here I would go along with Taoist thought.
This does
not mean, however, that nothing needs to be done. It does not yield laissez
faire. It does entail going along with the natural flow of processes, but one
may help evolutionary processes of development to proceed, by facilitating and
directing the core processes of the generation of variety, selection and
proliferation of success. I think that is consistent with Taoist thought: the
growth of plants can be enhanced by seeding, watering and pruning.
Similarly,
I appreciate the value of markets, to let people do their own bidding in supply
and demand, but institutions are needed to enable markets and constrain them in
their perverse effects. In the next item of this blog I start an extensive
series concerning economics and markets.
Will human
beings act well when allowed to act freely according to natural impulse? In
this blog I have argued that human nature is ambivalent in this respect. It
harbours instincts of both self-interest and altruism (within limits). Under
existential threat self-interest for the sake of survival is the stronger.
Cultural means, in an ethics of conduct, and institutional means, in the rule
of law, are needed to curtail egotism. Here I side with the Confucian view.
Institutions
are needed to limit obstacles to the manifestation and flourishing of positive
natural impulse towards fairness, solidarity, and justice. For example, they
may be needed to break through prisoners dilemmas where individually people may
be willing to act ethically but collectively find that they are unable to do so
unless others do so as well. Society in general, and the economy in particular,
are rife with such dilemmas. Intervention is needed to allow for escape from
the dilemma’s.
In sum, I
side with Taoism in restraint of planning of activities, intervention in
natural processes, and regimentation of values and conduct, but I side with
Confucianism in the need to curtail perverse instincts and solve social
dilemmas.
No comments:
Post a Comment