I don’t believe he would. But he was fairly realistic about accepting that kings do in fact do all kinds of terrible things. Accepting the reality of the world is not condoning it.
Exactly. Libertarians co-opt the anarchist argument that government is reinforced by the threat of violence. In an ideal world this wouldn’t happen.
But the problem is, how do we get to this ideal world? It’s not by demanding that this world operate as if it were an ideal world: that’s what teenagers do. The first step is to accept our own responsibility to contribute and help others. If we come out of the gate asserting our right to not contribute, well.
It is a bit of a loaded question. But there was a bit of reason behind it.
This actually works well also. Actually, I think this is better than mine.
What I was trying to accomplish was to eventually show a more intrinsic nature to the left or right positions and peak prosperity and happiness. Like many things in life, positions have layers. Some people have the position that the more right wing a country is the worse off that country is. Or, vise versa, the more left wing a country is the worse off they are.
But there are others (and I think it is more than people think) that believe that it is not as simple as more right is good or more left is better. I believe this is the difference in linearity and nonlinearity, one of the central distinctions in mathematics.
In a linear model, the highest point of the line segment (maximum prosperity and happiness) has to be on one end or the other.
If lowering taxes is good, then lowering taxes even more must be better. Or, if the line slopes the other direction, then no amount of government spending would be too much.
However, like many things in mathematics, physics, and economics, real curves are nonlinear. In nonlinear curves, peak performance is found somewhere in between.
Some countries need to be more left (like Iran, Yemen, etc) others need to be more right (Sweden comes to mind… they’ve been creeping more right over the years with their capitalism)
This issue isn’t unique to taxation. It arises in relation to any claim to property and many (if not all) other functions of a legal system. Would the Buddha condone the use of force to evict people, recover stolen goods, secure the payment of debts (of which taxation is merely an instance), preventing the infringement of human rights, etc?
The only way to avoid this would be to have some sort of society based on consensus and norms enforced merely by social censure. As I understand it, the monastic sangha is based on such principles, perhaps illustrating the point.
It does seem some immediate return hunter-gatherer societies have/had something roughly approximating this, as illustrated by this article by Jerome Lewis about the Mbendjele BaYaka in Central Africa.
If you’re referring to a socialist type revolution (i.e. seizing the means of production), I don’t think the Buddha would have advocated that because of the inevitable violence associated with it. That’s where the parallels of traditional leftism and Buddhism diverge very strongly imo. He was not a social revolutionary. Happiness and peace for everybody in this life is something we should strive for but it’s not the end goal. It won’t lead to the permanent freedom the Buddha described.
I’m a leftist Buddhist but the Buddhism comes first. If we achieved paradise on this planet, almost everybody will still be subject to rebirth and suffering/stress after they die. But a layperson not striving for every lifeform to have peace and opportunity for enlightenment in this life or later ones I think is not participating in karma conducive to their own release from the cycle of rebirth. No matter how good of a meditator you are, I think metta is an absolutely critical component of the Buddhist life for a layperson, and disdain for any other lifeform, no matter how coarse their existence seems to you, seems like a factor that would limit your potential achievements pretty severely.
I don’t know if this is the case, but I think it’s certainly true that most political commentators on Twitter, YouTube etc are really in it for the money more than the cause. I think that’s true of any political commentator, from any spectrum. It’s entertainment, and people buy into it becoming more tribal in the process. It’s a shame, because with tribalism comes the othering of the people. If my side has all the answers and is morally pure, then your side is completely wrong and is morally bankrupt. This creates a toxic environment for everyone. I think it’s appalling how people talk to each other on social media these days, such as Twitter. I myself have had rape and death threats in the past for voicing my centre-right political views, and I see lots of people from other political persuasions also getting lots of abuse just for airing theirs. It’s wrong. Of course, with all that said, there are people with morally bankrupt positions. The Fascists, Neo-Nazis, Marxist-Leninists etc and they should be opposed, but even there we don’t have to be cruel. Understanding how they got to where they are is much better IMO. Usually it’s because they feel disenfranchised, have been hard done by and are struggling in society. As ever I think the 4 brahmavihārā are the best way to navigate life, including politics. Be friendly and loving to everyone. Be compassionate to those who are suffering. Rejoice in the virtues others have, however small and be equanimous in the face of adversity or praise.
I think your right that many use politics to divide people in order to make money (and i think to also gain/keep power/control)
I beleive the politicians are corrupt on both sides of the isle.
I also agree that people have a hard time disagreeing with each other nowadays. Ive seen and heard personal attacks on people who simply voiced their opinions on something. Ive actually seen someone get verbally persecuted just for explaining something (the person never said one way or the other whether he condoned what was being talked about). He was just explaining the information that his research had unearthed. And people lost their minds on the pour guy because they did not like the information that was brought forth.
On that, I think both the Buddha and John Lennon would agree.
Only thing is, given the state of disinformation by the right in the US, it’s important to be clear that this is the classical sense of “socialist” that we were taught in the 20th century. It has nothing to do with the “democratic socialist” policies that are the norm in modern developed countries such as those of Europe (and Australia to some degree), and are advocated by the “progressives” of the US.
Sorry for continuing a contentious topic but for me (and I suspect for others as well) it is just plain interesting.
I’d love nothing more than an economy/lifestyle based on human nature, i.e. social egalitarianism. I think anybody honestly analyzing the people who are the most comfortable resource-wise in this global society would recognize that those people have a kind of sickness that makes satisfaction and contentedness truly impossible.
I don’t think people who support the idea that an individual’s resources should never be limited can give an honest response to the question “why do they continue working?” when it’s applied to the richest people in the world.
The actual answer is that they have a sickness. They need to be remembered. They need future generations to study their name and actions, even though it’s obvious eventually every human being will be forgotten. They’re sacrificing actual living people for that goal. The Buddha let us know how worthless those kinds of “achievements” actually are. If kids in middle school in the year 3,000 studied Jeff Bezos’ actions, why does it actually matter? If we’re all experiencing lives for an amount of time that might as well make thousands of years seem comparable to a few seconds, that’s an embarrassing goal to seek out.
I think the critical takeaway from this kind of subject is that satisfaction in this life is not only not possible through traditional/“non religious” means, it’s not a wise goal. Right now, even believing in Buddhism and rebirth, I’d gladly give my life if that meant we’d get a global society where nobody was marginalized and everybody was taken care of and given the means to live a satisfying life. But I’d consider that actually unwise of me.
That’s not Buddhism’s goal… The ten thousand years plus of civilization are nothing compared to the amount of time we each have experienced according to the Buddha.
To summarize, Buddhist ethics very obviously lie on the left side of the typically understood political spectrum. But at the same time, politics are not a worthy Buddhist consideration in the long run. We should all hope that everybody is not subjected to suffering, but basic avoidance of suffering should not be anybody’s primary goal
I think the wise course of action for us laypeople is to unceasingly seek out an egalitarian society, and be ok with the fact that that’s almost certainly impossible. Let’s live in the middle of what amounts to an ethical paradox and not let that change our behavior.
