A prolific writer, speaker, economist, and philosopher, Murray Rothbard (1926-1995) has often been branded an extremist by both the political right and the left. Whether or not one agrees with his views, the philosophy he coined, known as anarcho-capitalism, was a counter to political Marxism and gave birth to the modern libertarian movement. Libertarian thought places a heavy emphasis on individuality, freedom from state regulation, and the absence of coercion. Some scholars often associate libertarianism with Daoism because of Daoism’s focus on allowing things to go their natural course. Additionally, Daoism also focuses on the significance of the individual being able to be free by interacting with the environment, resembling an escape from societal strains and giving the individual the freedom to live in a manner consistent with nature. Essentially, the absence of state coercion in the economic and social sector and natural rights theory, both fundamental tenets of libertarianism, appears to fit well with the Daoist philosophy, and Rothbard sought to develop a school of thought rooted in these principles. His philosophy advocated for a stateless society in which market forces would dictate the structuring of society. His form of Laissez-Faire economics taken to its “logical extreme” reflects aspects of Daoist thought regarding market economics and individuality. Although there are many similarities between Daoism and modern anarchism, the purpose of this paper is not to analyze such topics (Feldt 324), but to argue that the philosophy of Daoism was an important part to the formation of Murray Rothbard’s political strategies, his advocacy of free markets, and his view of the illegitimacy of the state.
Rothbard’s Political Strategy
Upon looking at Rothbard’s analysis of Daoist works, it shows the influence it had on his strategy. From a historical viewpoint he looked at what he considered the world’s first libertarians for direction: “For Lao Zi the individual and his happiness was the key unit and goal of society. If social institutions hampered the individual’s…then those institutions should be reduced or abolished altogether” (Rothbard, “Four Strategies” 1). Rothbard knew that throughout time there have been many ‘libertarian movements’ that advocated for results like his, but the success of these movements was seemingly non-existent. He continues his analysis by making this conclusion about Daoist philosophy: “Lao Zi arrived at his challenging and radical new insights in a world dominated by the power of Oriental despotism. What strategy to pursue for social change?...[He] took the only strategic way out…withdrawal from society and the world” (Rothbard, “Four Strategies” 2). Rothbard recognizes the complications with a philosophy that advocates for non-aggression but pushes for radical social change in the economic, social, and political sectors. The difficulty of a complete revolution can be seen from the example of Lao Zi. Despite Lao Zi’s great influence in Chinese thought, his conclusion was to escape from society to obtain increased happiness. Rothbard’s came to the same moral conclusion regarding the state as Lao Zi but disagreed on the strategy. Essentially, Rothbard seems to imply that a relatively simple way to escape from the evils of the state institution would be to retreat from society, but it would not be the correct way to bring about social change (Rothbard, “Four Strategies” 10). Rothbard agrees with the principles of Daoism, but departs from Lao Zi regarding strategic moves, concluding that retreat would bring about no impactful change to society. Thus, Daoism had an important influence on Rothbard’s political strategy by acting as an empirical example of a strategy that did not work.
Rothbard’s Laissez-Faire Beliefs
The philosophy of Daoism plays a role in influencing the economic school of thought known as laissez-faire which is the basis of Rothbard’s anarcho-capitalist theory. The term Laissez-Faire likely originated in a meeting between French rulers and French business men (The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica, “Laissez-Faire”). The prevailing economic theories of the time had little to do with a market free from government intervention. Mercantilism was essentially complete government control of the economy to benefit the state. In the meeting, the Mercantilists asks the business what the government can do to best help, and the response was “Leave it to us”-in French this is Laissez Faire (BusinessDictionary.com, “What is laissez-Faire? definition and meaning”). The advocacy that Daoism appears to have for Laissez Faire is clearly outlines in the Eastern Economic Journal:
Chuang Zi u is equally clear in his support for a policy of laissez-faire… "Let It Be, Leave It Alone," which is virtually synonymous with "laissez-faire:" I have heard of letting the world be, of leaving it alone; I have never heard of governing the world. You let it be for fear of corrupting the inborn nature of the world; you leave it alone for fear of distracting the Virtue of the world. If the nature of the world is not corrupted, if the Virtue of the world is not distracted, why should there be any governing of the world (McCormick 334).
The scholarly work that links laissez-faire and Daoism indicate that the absence of governing humans and nature is what allows the world to flourish. The lack of control reflects many laissez-faire thinkers such as Adam Smith’s concept of the invisible hand. The invisible hand theory says that allowing individual units of the market to follow their own selfish inclinations will result in the best possible outcome for society. The “virtue” of society as defined by Rothbard is one free of coercion and the maximal freedom of the individual. Rothbard asks the same rhetorical question as the Daoist: why is the monopolistic force known as government a necessary facet of society? The impact of Daoism on laissez-faire thinkers is profound, but the impact of it on Rothbard seems to be even more. Most advocates of laissez faire economics were not proponents of a stateless society but saw government as having some utility as a stabilizing force in society. Rothbard on the other hand seems to be influenced by Daoism in its entirety. He makes a similar conclusion as outlined by the Daoist that the state is incompatible with economic freedom and the happiness of the individual. Thus, one can see that Rothbard’s huge advocacy for a society run by free markets is influenced by the Daoist philosophy of government and economics.
The State is Illegitimate
The moral contradiction that Rothbard attributes to the existence of the state is heavily influenced by similar Daoist sentiments. Rothbard boldly declared that society functions optimally and in the best interests of individuals when left alone and allowed to flourish. He actively voiced his opposition to the state monopoly and condemned it as being morally illegitimate. Rothbard defines the institution of the state as having a monopoly on the initiation of force over a specific geographical area (Rothbard, “Anatomy” 15). Similarly, Chuang Zi, a proponent of Daoism reflects this thought: “The retreat from the state was dominant Daoist objective may be seen in the views of the great Daoist Chaung Zi…pushed the master’s ideas of laissez-faire to their logical conclusion: individualist anarchism. Chaung Zi’s scornful rejection of the king’s offer was one of the great declarations in history…it was a fitting declaration from the world’s first anarchist” (Rothbard, “The Role of” 45). In Rothbard’s book Man Economy and State, the first chapter starts by discussing a one-person economy and continues to expand that to deduce prominent economic principles, namely the axiom of action, utility, demand, and marginal utility. The fifteen-hundred-page long book comes to the laissez faire conclusion that no government is the best government. Although many of Rothbard’s contemporaries thought his views to be ludicrous, it is likely that Rothbard used the model of supposed early anarchist thought as a supporting frame work for his beliefs. In Chuang Zi’s writings, he blatantly criticizes the state as a “great brigand that becomes the ruler of a state” (Rothbard, “The Role of” 46). The radical conclusion that Rothbard comes to is rooted in similar moral beliefs as Daoism and particularly Chaung Zi. According to Rothbard’s interpretation of Chuang Zi’s writings, he saw robbers of the people no differently from state rulers. Chaung Zi like Rothbard saw legalized robbery to have no distinction with criminal robbery. The influence that the early writings of Chaung Zi and Daoism had on Rothbard is profound. Rothbard often quoted the Daoist as the first anarchists in the economic and social sector. In his contributions to the Libertarian Journals and his countless novels, he applies the moral and philosophical logic of Daoism. This is evident in the way that he outlines his opposition against state control of the individual and the conclusions he comes to about the state being morally illegitimate.
Conclusion
The moral, religious, and secular philosophy of Daoism reflects many libertarian themes. Whether or not the influential Daoist thinkers were protagonists of libertarian principles, it is evident that the empirical history, framing of laissez economics and moral conclusions of Daoist thought influenced Rothbard’s strategy, economics, and his conclusion that a stateless society was the only logical step. The evidence of such things can be found in Rothbard’s countless writings. His reference to the many anarchist movements and mankind’s thirst for freedom typically starts in the ancient civilization of China. Daoism, a worldwide religion has influenced many people’s lives, but has also been a large contributor to the libertarian thought and the development of Rothbard’s economic and political theories.
Works Cited
Rothbard, Murray. Anatomy of The State. Important Books, 2017.
Rothbard, Murray Newton. Man, economy, and state. Nash, 1970.
Rothbard, Murray N. Economic thought before Adam Smith. Elgar, 1995.
McCormick, Ken. “The Tao of Laissez-Faire.” JSTOR, vol. 25, ser. 3, 17 Oct. 2017, pp. 331–341. 3, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40325935
Rothbard, Murray N. "Concepts of the Role of Intellectuals In Social Change Toward Laissez Faire." Journal of Libertarian Studies 9, No. 2 (1990): 43–67.
Feldt, Alex. “Governing Through the Dao: A Non-Anarchistic Interpretation of the Laozi.” Dao, vol. 9, no. 3, Apr. 2010, pp. 323–337., doi:10.1007/s11712-010-9176-z.
Carreiro, Daniel Rodriguez. “The Dao Against the Tyrant: The Limitation of Power in the Political Thought of Ancient China.” Libertarian Papers, vol. 5, no. 1, 2013, pp. 111–148.
Rothbard, Murray. “Four Strategies for Libertarian Change.” London: Libertarian Alliance, 1989, pp. 1–14.
The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. “Laissez-Faire.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., 19 Oct. 2016, www.britannica.com/topic/laissez-faire
“What is laissez-Faire? definition and meaning.” BusinessDictionary.com, www.businessdictionary.com/definition/laissez-faire.html.
