Buddhism & Libertarianism

Excerpted from The Lion’s Roar, a Buddhist magazine.

The following is really a brief philosophical discussion of libertarianism and how it relates to Buddhism.

The Nonaggression Principle: The nonaggression principle is a central tenet of Buddhism and libertarianism. When we discuss aggression or violence against individuals or marginalized groups, we often forget to include the state in the calculation. Government, by its very nature, is an instrument of aggression. Further, it is distinct among all other institutions in that it assumes upon itself a monopoly on aggression: It creates a legal structure codifying aggression and, subsequently, absolves itself of aggression’s inherent immorality.

Voluntarism: Buddhists and libertarians agree that interactions between individuals and groups should be voluntary and without the coercive threat of aggression.

Moral Transmutation: Moral transgressions like stealing, slavery, or killing are all prohibitions within Buddhist (Five Precepts) and libertarian philosophy. Libertarians, however, view these as immoral no matter who initiates them — individuals, groups, or government. This is a difficult point for liberal-leaning Buddhists to understand. By waving a magic wand, the government transmutes theft, slavery, and killing into taxation, conscription, and war.

Libertarians believe in voluntary community engagement because we understand that centralized power structures are a very bad thing. The reason why Buddhists are concerned about Trump — and rightly so — is because of what he could do with the established power structure. If Trump, or the government for that matter, didn’t have all-encompassing power, then the occupant of the White House would be of no concern.

The problem isn’t who is on the throne. Rather, the problem is that a throne exists. You simply cannot build a bonfire and hope the wind doesn’t change. It is an illusion of control. Impermanence tells us that nothing remains constant.

Libertarians will continue working cooperatively with any group of people who are targeted for state aggression by Trump or any other occupant of the White House. I only ask that my fellow Buddhists examine what I’ve outlined and at least understand where us few libertarian Buddhists are coming from.

http://www.lionsroar.com/conservative-buddhists-speak-part-1/?utm_source=Lion’s+Roar+Newsletter&utm_campaign=0fe1d82c43-Weekly-Dec-20-2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1988ee44b2-0fe1d82c43-22033257&mc_cid=0fe1d82c43&mc_eid=aef30b44d7 <http://www.lionsroar.com/conservative-buddhists-speak-part-1/?utm_source=Lion’s+Roar+Newsletter&utm_campaign=0fe1d82c43-Weekly-Dec-20-2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1988ee44b2-0fe1d82c43-22033257&mc_cid=0fe1d82c43&mc_eid=aef30b44d7>

Warm regards, Michael

Michael R. Edelstein, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist
415-673-2848 (24/7)
htttp://ThreeMinuteTherapy.com <http://www.threeminutetherapy.com/>

Author of Three Minute Therapy <http://www.threeminutetherapy.com/>
Features help for anxiety, depression,
relationships, panic attacks and addiction

The problem with the above formulation is that libertarianism is centered on ego (and its manifestation, Ownership) as the fulcrum of existence (or, at least, of the Self) -- whereas Buddhism sees ego (and Ownership) as itself "the illusion of control."

Indeed, "The problem isn’t who is on the throne. Rather, the problem is that a throne exists." The problem with libertarianism is that it puts the Owner on the throne, rather than eliminating the throne itself.

There’s limited govt libertarianism and anarcho-libertarianism. The latter eliminates the throne.

Warm regards, Michael

Michael R. Edelstein, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist
415-673-2848 (24/7)
htttp://ThreeMinuteTherapy.com <http://www.threeminutetherapy.com/>

Author of Three Minute Therapy <http://www.threeminutetherapy.com/>
Features help for anxiety, depression,
relationships, panic attacks and addiction

Buddhism is about the eradication of ego -- be it individual ego or collective ego (in the form of the State) -- and its displacement by compassion or empathy.

Conversely, individualist anarchism (from Stirner to Rand, Rothbard, et al.) valorizes the ego and its manifestation as Ownership. Is that what you mean by "anarcho-libertarianism"?

As I wrote, "Buddhism sees ego (and Ownership) as itself 'the illusion of control'." Note that this means repudiating Ownership itself, and not merely "property," which is indeed a function of the "minarchist" State.

Michael Edelstein wrote:

Mitch,

  The buddhist approach is about people learning to make wise choices by cultivating proper ways of thinking and being, not about having their choices externally restricted via political means (the "throne" from which some people rule others).

  If one avoids materialism not by renouncing or transcending it, but rather by an accident of circumstances, i.e. as a consequence of others denying one the opportunity to own things, can one really be considered enlightened from a buddhist perspective? It seems to me the answer would be no.

  While choosing non-attachment and letting go of ego is clearly not the same as libertarianism, I believe it is entirely compatible with libertarianism, and incompatible with other political approaches which rely upon aggression. Non–aggression, not ownership, is the central libertarian principle, imho.

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))

Since we're on the subject, here's a charming buddhist parable that just arrived in my In Box...

From: "'Andrew Greene' blaze@... [pinkpistols-politics]" <pinkpistols-politics@yahoogroups.com>
Date: January 29, 2017 1:48:47 AM PST
To: <pinkpistols-politics@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [pinkpistols-politics] Meet the new boss
Reply-To: pinkpistols-politics@yahoogroups.com

When the nun Chiyono studied Zen under Bukko of Engaku she was unable to attain the fruits of meditation for a long time.

At last one moonlit night she was carrying water in an old pail bound with bamboo. The bamboo broke and the bottom fell out of the pail, and at that moment Chiyono was set free!

In commemoration, she wrote a poem:

In this way and that I tried to save the old pail
Since the bamboo strip was weakening and about
   to break
Until at last the bottom fell out.
No more water in the pail!
No more moon in the water!

  What is the point of the story? Zen parables are famously enigmatic, but my guess is that it has to do with the student recognizing that whether the bottom falls out of the pail or not doesn't matter, since the water was never in the pail to begin with, any more than the moon was in the water (material reality as illusion). Whether the pail was "owned" by Bukko, by Chiyono, or was the common property of the community, seems immaterial to this spiritual lesson, no?

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

Isn't a throne the symbol of the highest enlightenment in Buddhism? Siddartha himself was heir to a throne, wasn't he?
Harland Harrison

I'd initially intended to note that the while the Buddhist repudiation of ego incorporates non-aggression -- and may be fully compatible with that principle -- it (crucially) goes far beyond that.

Opportunity can be denied only by that which constrains compassion -- and that's ultimately an inner challenge. All other notions of "opportunity" are figments of ego-attachment and illusion.

Regarding the parable, it's worth noting that ownership is a form (perhaps the most basic form) of ego-attachment: if the woman remains rooted in the fact that she owns the bucket (or if that informs her concern), she can never realize liberation she's depicted as achieving. The illusion is not the water or the moon, but her limited recognition of her relationship with them and of the relationships between them -- a form of ignorance (and misguided concern) from which she's ultimately freed (by her transcendent realization).

---In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, <sfdreamer@...> wrote :

Since we're on the subject, here's a charming buddhist parable that just arrived in my In Box...

Returning to Starchild’s original point, the essence of libertarianism is the NAP, not property. If I own no property I can still be a consistent libertarian. If I initiate violence I cannot be.

I'd initially intended to note that the while the Buddhist repudiation of ego incorporates non-aggression -- and may be fully compatible with that principle -- it (crucially) goes far beyond that.

Opportunity can be denied only by that which constrains compassion -- and that's ultimately an inner challenge. All other notions of "opportunity" are figments of ego-attachment and illusion.

Regarding the parable, it's worth noting that ownership is a form (perhaps the most basic form) of ego-attachment: if the woman remains rooted in the fact that she owns the bucket (or if that informs her concern), she can never realize liberation she's depicted as achieving. The illusion is not the water or the moon, but her limited recognition of her relationship with them and of the relationships between them -- a form of ignorance (and misguided concern) from which she's ultimately freed (by her transcendent realization).

---In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>, <sfdreamer@...> wrote :

  Since we're on the subject, here's a charming buddhist parable that just arrived in my In Box...

From: "'Andrew Greene' blaze@... <mailto:blaze@…> [pinkpistols-politics]" <pinkpistols-politics@yahoogroups.com <mailto:pinkpistols-politics@yahoogroups.com>>
Date: January 29, 2017 1:48:47 AM PST
To: <pinkpistols-politics@yahoogroups.com <mailto:pinkpistols-politics@yahoogroups.com>>
Subject: RE: [pinkpistols-politics] Meet the new boss
Reply-To: pinkpistols-politics@yahoogroups.com <mailto:pinkpistols-politics@yahoogroups.com>

When the nun Chiyono studied Zen under Bukko of Engaku she was unable to attain the fruits of meditation for a long time.

At last one moonlit night she was carrying water in an old pail bound with bamboo. The bamboo broke and the bottom fell out of the pail, and at that moment Chiyono was set free!

In commemoration, she wrote a poem:

In this way and that I tried to save the old pail
Since the bamboo strip was weakening and about
   to break
Until at last the bottom fell out.
No more water in the pail!
No more moon in the water!

  What is the point of the story? Zen parables are famously enigmatic, but my guess is that it has to do with the student recognizing that whether the bottom falls out of the pail or not doesn't matter, since the water was never in the pail to begin with, any more than the moon was in the water (material reality as illusion). Whether the pail was "owned" by Bukko, by Chiyono, or was the common property of the community, seems immaterial to this spiritual lesson, no?

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

What in the world is happening in San Jose? Did someone just forget to start draining Anderson Reservoir on time or what? Supposedly, Anderson is rarely over 1/2 full because it sits on an earthquake fault.

Harland Harrison#yiv9719985828 #yiv9719985828 -- .yiv9719985828ygrp-photo-title{clear:both;font-size:smaller;height:15px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;width:75px;}#yiv9719985828 div.yiv9719985828ygrp-photo{background-position:center;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:white;border:1px solid black;height:62px;width:62px;}#yiv9719985828 div.yiv9719985828photo-title a, #yiv9719985828 div.yiv9719985828photo-title a:active, #yiv9719985828 div.yiv9719985828photo-title a:hover, #yiv9719985828 div.yiv9719985828photo-title a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv9719985828 div.yiv9719985828attach-table div.yiv9719985828attach-row {clear:both;}#yiv9719985828 div.yiv9719985828attach-table div.yiv9719985828attach-row div {float:left;}#yiv9719985828 p {clear:both;padding:15px 0 3px 0;overflow:hidden;}#yiv9719985828 div.yiv9719985828ygrp-file {width:30px;}#yiv9719985828 div.yiv9719985828attach-table div.yiv9719985828attach-row div div a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv9719985828 div.yiv9719985828attach-table div.yiv9719985828attach-row div div span {font-weight:normal;}#yiv9719985828 div.yiv9719985828ygrp-file-title {font-weight:bold;}#yiv9719985828

OK. Supposedly they had a "model", probably meaning a computer simulation, which told them the water would drain fast enough. Most likely, nobody ever calibrated the model for the amount of vegetation in the stream beds. CalTrans said 101 was flooded because a levee failed. The channel being at flood stage could have contributed to such an event. So who pays for all the damage? Does the gov't have "sovereign immunity" as usual?
Harland Harrison