Response to Robert Thurman's "Meme"

Robert Thurman is an author, scholar and translator of Tibetan Buddhism.  He has been refered to by Time Magazine as "The Dalai Lama's man in America".  He's a prolific writer and lecturer, and he's also the father of the actress Uma Thurman.

I first stumbled upon his work looking up Buddhist Sutras to purchase on Amazon.com.  I read his translation of the Vimalakirti Sutra, called The Holy Teaching of Vimalakirti: A Mahayana Scripture, and I thought it was excellent.

However, I consider his political views to be far less enlightening...

In the above video, Mr. Thurman expresses his distaste for Grover Norquist's "Taxpayer Protection Pledge", a pledge which over 90% of Republicans in the congress and senate have signed.  Signers of the pledge vow not to raise net taxes on individuals and businesses - an agreement which Thurman believes to be a "treasonous oath" because it is, in Thurman's opinion, at odds with the U.S. constitution.

The oath of office is as follows, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."  Thurman believes that politicians who have taken the Taxpayer Protection Pledge are approaching their oath of office with some form of "mental reservation" because they have plans beforehand not to raise taxes. 

Of course, politicians who sign the pledge are well aware that the amount of taxes already coming in is many times more than the amount needed to fulfill the legitimate roll of government as outlined in the constitution. 

Contrary to Thurman's argument, I would argue that it is with mental reservation that office holders such as President Obama take their oath of office.  The progressive agenda has little to do with the constitution and more to do with creating a level playing field where the rich are brought down and where the poor are brought up.  To uphold the constitution means simply to protect the individual liberties outlined in the constitution.  Redistributive taxation, nationalized healthcare, bank bailouts, preemptive wars, gun control, farm subsidies, unemployment benefits, foreign aid, corporate taxes, eminent domain, and even the income tax itself - these are all governmental activities which the government does without any constitutional authority aside from supposedly promoting the "general welfare", a term which shows up only in the preamble to the constitution.

Promoting the general welfare can mean whatever you want it to mean.  Say people aren't getting enough sleep  - I think going to bed at 10pm is best, so I'm going to make a law that the country's bed time is 10pm because that law promotes the general welfare of society.  Would that make sense?  Many in office today, including the president, are seeking to change the world and are willing to ignore or go against the constitution (and their oath) to do it because they believe that they know better.  I don't think they deliberately intend to do harm but the further they drift away from the constitution the more harm they end up doing.

The oath of office is an oath to uphold the constitution, not an oath to "serve the government", as Thurman puts it.  Especially when serving the government is itself a violation of the constitution!

Norquist's pledge is intended to "starve the beast" by making it impossible for the federal government to continue its out of control deficit spending through limiting the amount of tax revenue coming in.  The result has been that instead of cutting spending, we have increased borrowing and printing of money - an approach which is completely unsustainable and which basically amounts to selling off our children to a life of debt for generations to come.  So, it seems that starving the beast only made it madder, and increased its appetite!

What Thurman does not realize is that the government has already far exceeded its constitutional duties (most importantly: to protect the country from outside threats - military, to protect citizens from domestic threats - police, and to set up a judicial system under which contracts between individual will be protected - the court system).  Everything else can and will be taken care of by the market.  For that very reason, politicians should pledge not to raise taxes, so as to bring the government back to its constitutionally bound limitations.

The system we have now creates perverse incentives for politicians to make promises to their constituencies in exchange for campaign funding.  The promises they make always amount to political favors in one form or another.  Promises could include public funding for a private venture (such as the now infamous Solyndra deal), increased regulation which allows one particular business to corner the market, increased benefits for powerful public sector unions, or promises to give government loans for students so that they can afford higher education.  There is plenty of money coming in from taxes, from rich and poor, and if you've got the lobbyists in place - you might be able to get some.  (After all, the money the government spends isn't coming out of their pockets - what do they care?)

These types of public/private partnerships are not the free market in action, they are what is known as crony capitalism, and corporatism (or as John Stossel calls it, "crapitalism"). 


But the blame for this outright theft should not lie on the corporations and lobbyists who go looking for handouts (the money is there for the taking, and if you don't grab it - someone else will).  The blame must lie on the government who has the power to give the handouts in the first place.  If the money were left in the hands of those who earned it, by honest  and voluntary means, the whole world would be better off.

When a business provides a product or service at an affordable price, people willingly exchange money for that product or service and both parties are better off.  (After the exchange, I have a fresh cup of coffee, they have $1.62 - a trade which happened voluntarily and which leaves us both richer as a result).  On the other hand, the government has no money of its own to spend.  Every single penny the government gives out is literally stolen from productive individuals - against their will, by force.  It is either taken right out of their pockets (taxation), taken out of their future earnings (borrowing) or it is taken by devaluing the money people already have (printing money and inflating the money supply).  This is the inherent immorality of the state.

It is these types of actions which the constitution was made to prevent from happening.  And though these government programs may arguably be well intentioned, fundamentally the redistribution of wealth starts with theft.  The Taxpayer Protection Pledge is made by those running for office who wish to give the message to the public that they do not intend to increase the amount of theft already happening.

But why do so many people, Robert Thurman included, side with the proponents of bigger government, more theft, and less freedom for individuals?  It is because they think that misguided people with materialistic aims seek to gain as much as they can for themselves, giving no regard for the effect their actions have on others.  They see successful businessmen as bullies in the sandbox hogging the cool toys, and government as the gentle parent who reminds the greedy kids that they must share with each other.  In the eyes of the left, if we fall, the government will be there to pick us up, and if we are to gain any success we should be expected to share that success.  Since they don't trust that successful people would be charitable of their own accord, the "charity" is taken by force.  They see businessmen as greedy, selfish, and lacking compassion, and they see themselves as noble and wise enough to know how best to spend the riches that those greedy businessmen are able to acquire.  Of course, they're dead wrong on all fronts, and as a result they are getting ripped off every day.

I would argue that the same character traits, good or bad, are shared equally by all people - whether they are businessmen or politicians, rich or poor, young or old.  The difference is that the businessman has to offer you something of value before he can make a profit.  The politician simply needs to point a gun at you to get his profit (which he gives to friends who helped him to get the votes he needed to get into office).  Whether the businessman intends to keep the money he rightfully earns or to give it to charity is his choice.  However, even if he keeps the money, he is already giving back to his fellow man by hiring his employees, and by trading with his suppliers and his customers.  In doing that act alone, of his own free will, he is providing more to society than any social welfare program can.  What liberals forget is that the free market does a better job than any top-down, centrally planned system of taking care of those who have the least in our society.  The poor, the elderly, the disabled - all are better off when people are free to live their lives as they see fit.

And so this "meme", that Republicans are committing treason and should be impeached for vowing not to raise taxes, makes absolutely no sense.  Our politicians are on a nonstop ripoff spree, and we need to do whatever we can  to get that under control.  I wish that Mr. Thurman could see the value that the free market has had in bringing peace, health and well being to all people (not just the rich), and the damage that government overspending does, especially for those who need the most help.  What would best serve the needs of society (especially the poor) would be if we could get the government out of economics as much as possible and let the market meet the demands of the people.  That would bring more jobs, encourage innovation, drive prices down, and generally make the United States a better place to live in.  Indeed it was the environment of limited government and maximum individual freedom which led to the great prosperity which made the U.S. the most prosperous nation on earth, and it was for that reason that people from all over the world want to come to the US- to get a fair chance at making a better life for themselves.  In a world where everyone is free, there is no one to pass the buck to - we must be responsible for our own lives and we must do what we can for others.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground."  Thomas Jefferson

The Zen of Liberty

I had it in my mind to create a blog dedicated to two philosophical schools which I am greatly interested in: Libertarianism and Zen Buddhism.  In my mind, the two have a lot in common, though I don't think I've ever seen a resource which draws upon both Zen and Libertarianism.  I hope to show that they rely on much the same principles and that they both seek to explain and to thrive in the natural world as it exists here and now.

And I'll also try to post about other stuff....

For now, back to Libertarianism and Zen:

To start, I'll attempt to define the two philosophies.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that suggests that free men, when left to their own devices, will create the greatest good for society as a whole by simply pursuing their own individual self interest, provided that they do not violate the principle of nonaggression against their fellow man and that they respect the property rights of one another.  Libertarians believe that markets arise spontaneously, where willing participants can go to exchange goods and services in transactions that benefit both buyer and seller.  They also believe that this process is natural and that this very process, in the market of ideas, has given us such fundamental elements of our lives as language itself.

Zen Buddhism is the ancient Chinese and Japanese form of Mahayana Buddhism which came out of Theravada Buddhism, and dates back to the historical Siddhartha Gautama, who was said to have realized Enlightenment and became the historical Buddha.  The philosophy of Buddhism is, to put it simply, that there is suffering in the world and that the suffering is caused by man's own ignorance and his thirst for what he cannot have.  Buddhists believe in the four noble truths; namely that suffering exists (in Sanskrit called Duhkha which may be better defined as pain, frustration, or chronic dis-ease), that there is a cause of this suffering (in Sanskrit called Trishna, which can be defined as thirst or desire), that there is a cure to this suffering (called Enlightenment or Nirvana), and that there is a way to achieving this cure which is the Eightfold Path.  (Paraphrased from Alan Watts 'The World as Emptiness')

The Eightfold Path is a code of conduct comprised of: Right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.  Adherence to the Eightfold Path will result in creating good Karma for yourself and those around you.  Karma isn't a mystical force which hovers over your head once you do something good or bad.  It is the real cause-and-effect relationship of actions.  If you honk your horn, the car in front of you will notice that the light has turned green and will start driving - this might have been the factor that led to you not having to wait at a railroad crossing for a slow moving freight train and then arrive late to work one too many times-or it might not make a difference.  A life full of hurting others, lying, stealing, and killing may have metaphysical consequences - we can't really know for sure if it does - but we do know that it has very real physical consequences.  Lying to others will add stress to your life, and will likely give you a bad reputation.  Stealing may pay off for a moment, but a thief risks injury and death when he takes something by force, and he also has to live in fear of retribution, and his natural compassion for others will also lead to much stress and anxiety.  Killing others is the same.  It is plain to see that to live a peaceful, honest life will bring more good to an individual than a violent, dishonest one. 

Where the Theravada Buddhists and the Mahayana Buddhists (which includes Zen) part ways is in the view of enlightenment.  For Theravada Buddhists, enlightenment is most likely not going to happen to the average practitioner in this lifetime, but will happen many lifetimes in the future.  The Mahayana Buddhists believe that enlightenment is possible because it is already here- that the greatest obstacle to enlightenment is our own ignorance and our view of ourselves and the world around us as separate entities.  To Mahayana Buddhists, enlightenment is the stripping away of all illusions, and the realization that what is left is your true Self. 

And so Zen (pronounced "Chan" in Chinese) came about, not as a protest to the earlier forms of Buddhism, but rather as a development or a blossoming of the earlier ideas of Theravada Buddhism, to what was thought to be their natural conclusion by others who had also had the realization which Siddhartha Gautama had (much in the way that limited government and a free market can naturally lead one philosophically toward minarchism and anarcho-capitalism).

Zen today is often characterized by the heavy ink paintings and calligraphy you find in Oriental art, as well as simple drawings, tea ceremonies, so-called Zen gardens, and well known koans such as "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"  All of the Zen arts are derived from an appreciation of what is.  Books like Zen and the Art of Archery show us the relation between thought and action.  Zen is a philosophy of action, of reality, and of the relationship of ourselves with the universe around us.  It comes from the realization that all that exists is wholly outside of our intellectual understanding and exists in an ever-changing, interdependent state of thusness (or Tathata).  The apparent "things" which we label as separate and independent do not in fact have an essence of their own outside of that which we ascribe to them.

For example, take a chair (you're probably using one right now).  Let's say it is a wooden chair.  For us, a chair has a shape and a form, and exists separately from things such as tables and trees.  But this felt essence of "chairness" which we perceive is nowhere to be found.  Instead we have a creation, made by someone somewhere in the world, which we know as a chair.  It has legs, it has a place to sit, therefore its a chair (and even Zen Buddhists agree that it is a chair, for practical purposes).  But what if we take away the seat?  Is it still a chair then?  If we take away two legs?  What if its a tiny chair, like for a Barbie doll - does it lose its "chairness" at that point, or is it just a model of a chair, containing "model-of-chairness"?  What if you sit on a table?  Does that make a table a chair?  Well, for all intents and purposes, yes - if you sit on a table, that table has become a chair.  But the table has not changed, what's changed is in our minds (in my mind it became a chair, anyway).  What can we really say about a chair?  Let's say the chair is made from wood - that we know for sure - the chair is a collection of wood which has been cut and sanded and screwed together to make a chair.  But where does the wood come from?  Let's say the wood is oak that it was grown somewhere in Maine and cut down to make a chair.  Okay, but what is wood?  Wood is the material that makes up a tree.  Trees are big plants that can be used to make chairs.  The oak tree grows out of an acorn (which grows out of the tree).  The seed uses water, air, soil and sunlight to sprout up towards the sky and to become a tree.  But trees cannot exist on their own.  They require the existence of water and air, of soil, of insects and birds, in a lot of cases they even require chair makers for their existence.  In this way, all things are interdependent on all other things in the universe, and nothing stays the same for long.  Just as the chair is, so our very identities have this elusive quality.  However, no matter how it exists in our minds, the chair (or whatever you want to call it) is there, underneath you now.   It is just the psychological view of a fragmented and isolated world of separate things that Zen attempts to refute.

It is the goal of Zen Buddhism to understand the true nature of one's self, and in doing so of the universe itself.

At last, I've come to the crux of my argument, that Libertarianism and Zen have a lot in common.

In his famous article I, Pencil, economist Leonard E. Read makes the statement that no one on Earth knows how to make a pencil.  It may sound absurd at first, but upon further scrutiny this is in fact the case.  This is because in order to make a pencil from scratch, you need to cut wood (from scratch), and in order to cut wood, you need to build a saw, in order to build that machinery you will need to mine iron and to produce steel, then the graphite will need to be mined from another place far away, and the rubber eraser will need to be made using another method entirely.  If someone were to go about doing this themselves, it would likely cost billions of dollars, and take years to finally complete.  This is not how pencils come to exist.  They come about as the cooperation of millions of individuals, all working to promote their self interest; all collaborating voluntarily, not coerced, and all making deals with one another individually which each one of them agrees was beneficial from his or her own perspective.  And, somehow or other, we today are able to buy a park of pencils for a few dollars and think nothing of it.  (See Milton Friedman's great explanation of the pencil here.)  And a pencil is probably one of the simplest tools in existence today.  The people who create that pencil, for the most part, have no idea who the other is.  They come from different walks of life, different social and economic classes, practice different religions, and speak different languages- and yet, pencils are made at an affordable price to every one of us.  According to Read, the people in this process are guided by an "invisible hand" in manufacturing this pencil.  It is not in spite of the self-interest of those involved, but rather a necessary product of that self-interest, with the entrepreneurial encouragement of bright capitalists,  that our society exists and that we are able to improve the quality of life on earth.

Zen teaches that the world we live in is perfect and complete, and that we are an inseparable part of the world and the universe.  It is our misconceptions and ignorance that seem to muddy up the whole thing.  Libertarianism teaches us that society is best run by individuals who are free to make their own decisions, bound by the simple law of nonaggression.  Again, the discord comes when we try to step in to try to fix what may not be broken.

Well meaning individuals may feel that the world suffers from "social injustice", and they consider this to be something that can be fixed by the State.  So they vote to pass laws which tax the wealthy and subsidize the poor.  Or they vote to raise the minimum wage, in an attempt to raise the income of those on the bottom rung of the economic ladder.  Instead, they hurt the poor much more than if they had done nothing, because a higher minimum wage just means that business owners can no longer afford to hire unskilled employees.  They create a system where you can't break into the workforce because the business would have to operate at a loss just to get you to the point where you become an asset to the company.  So rather than fixing the problem of economic equality, they make it worse - for rich and poor alike.

In the same way, practitioners of Zen may seek to alleviate suffering by attempting to rid themselves of desire.  The problem is that their very attempt to get away from desire is an act of desire itself.  So, they try to fix one problem by accidentally creating another problem, or even the same problem which they want to fix.  Or, in meditation, the Zen practitioner may attempt to stop their incessant pattern of thoughts, but instead return to the thought of "non-thought", and they are constantly playing a back and forth game of thinking about not thinking, and thinking about thinking about not thinking, etc.  This is a tricky situation, but it illustrates how people's misconception of the world and of themselves drive them to do things which seem to be the answer but may be the very cause of the problem.  (The answer is, in case you were wondering, not to try to not think, but simply to put your awareness into the action itself - in breathing, in posture, in movement, in action.  The Libertarian answer is almost the same - just let people live as they see fit.  What matters most is how well you can live your life.  If the rights of the individual are the foundation of society than everyone will have the best chance to live the life they want to live.)

Both Libertarianism and Zen have at their core a respect for the way things are in nature.  Individuals act according to their own self-interest, but not at the expense of others.  People who break this principle are considered by most to be in the wrong.  We are compassionate beings, across all cultures,we know that doing good for others will bring good to ourselves.  We are very clever and collectively have an unimaginably vast pool of knowledge, but no matter how much we think we know, we can never know it all.  The great revelation of Libertarianism is that doing good for ourselves necessarily brings good for others.

It is the great mistake of our age to believe that a voting majority should have the right to use force to take what is the lawful property of one person and give it to another person.  It is a mistake because the redistribution is being done with the use of force.  If force were not involved, and the same transaction were being done voluntarily, the effects would be far less devastating, and on the contrary would do plenty of good.  What today amounts to theft and government dependance, both on the part of the millionaire farmer getting subsidized to grow corn and the poor single mother in the inner city getting food stamps and public housing, would instead be a natural market allocation of funds to the most productive areas of society, and charity to those who really are in need (and not just those who are in need of a kick in the pants).  Where there is a demand, there will be a supply, and where people compete to meet that demand, goods and services get cheaper and more innovative. 

The great developments of human history, from language, to electricity, to the internet, the automobile, the airplane, and God knows what else, came as a result of resourceful and clever individuals taking what came before them, innovating and combining it with other innovations, to create something altogether novel - and all with their own self interest in mind.  This is the way humans are, naturally.  Attempts to punish those who are more successful and to prop up those who aren't able to succeed are unrealistic and do more harm than good.  Of course, nature is a relentlessly clever opponent, and any attempt to try to steer it against its own current will blow up in your face.

Zen and Libertarianism are both about the individual, and the individual's relationship with the world around him.  The Self, your body, your mind, and your spirit is the one bit of property you can never be without, and yet it cannot exist apart from the universe itself.  In both Zen and Liberty comes freedom and responsibility.  To force others to do the right thing will never work, for virtuous action can only be made by people allowed to act on their own free will.