Is Daoism (Taoism) a Libertarian Philosophy?

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

From the Dao De Jing (Tao Te Ching)

Chapter 57

Bring proper order to the state by being straightforward
And deploy the military with strategies that take the enemy by surprise,

But in ruling the world be non-interfering in going about its business
How do I know that this is really so?
from the following.

The more prohibitions and taboos there are in the world,
The poorer the people will be
The more sharp instruments in the hands of the common people,
The darker the days of the state
The more wisdom hawked among the people,
The more that perverse things will proliferate.
The more prominently the laws and statutes are displayed,
The more widespread will be the brigands and thieves.

Hence the words of the sage:
We do things noncoercively
And the common people develop among their own lines;
We cherish equilibrium
And the common people order themselves;
We are non-interfering in our governance
And the common people prosper themselves;
We are objectless in our desires
And the common people are of themselves like unworked wood.


Of course, much of the rest of Daoist philosophy encourages a lack of ambition or advancement.  I think the philosophy itself is simply about inaction to become wise than staight libertarian, though what do you all think?

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     Not castigating the notion of conquest & encouraging rulers to keep weapons from the people are definitely anti-libertarian. Not sure about the lines about hawking wisdom & prominently displaying laws & statutes; the latter could definitely be read either way.

     With that said, the overarching theme of a non-interfering, non-coercive government is rather libertarian.

[anvi]

n its own historical context, the Dao De Jing was actually a political handbook for rulers of small states during the Warring States Period in China, which was a 250 year long civil war waged between about six major states and fourteen or so minor ones.  The larger states had vastly more territory, resources and power and were actively trying to expand their provenance.  Small states were often caught in the middle of such wars and were frequently overrun.  So, this text was a sort of guide book (dao as a transitive verb in classical Chinese means "to guide," as a noun it means a "road" or "path.") for rulers of vulnerable states, instructing them not to amass or show off wealth within their states that could attract greedy attention, not to wield weapons unless necessary, and not to impose either policies or moral values on their citizens, beyond providing for necessities, so as to avoid contention internal to the state.  The translation you are quoting from looks like the one from Roger Ames, and he translates what you are referring to as "non-action" as "doing things non-coercively," which is mostly a good way to understand how the characters wu wei are being used in the text.
There are things in the Dao De Jing that have mystical and metaphysical overtones, and lots of other Daoist books that are primarily mystical.  But the Dao De Jing was definitely a political handbook, many of its chapters are addressed directly to rulers.

I don't think the category "libertarian" really fits the ancient Chinese context.  But, on the other hand, there are some things in there that I can easily see would have some resonance with modern libertarians (though some things wouldn't).

Glad to see a discussion thread here on Daoism!

[Vasall des Midas]

Lol.

[Judäischen Volksfront]

It's interesting that China's other major philosophy, Confucianism, is seen as preaching obedience, yet in fact preaches passively subverting the unjust government instead of openly challenging it. It also comes with the notion that the people have the right to overthrow a tyrannical or incompetent government, which emerged thousands of years before the Enlightenment of Europe. Obviously, many emperors (including the current one) have tried to downplay that passage, but they know they can't defeat it.

[anvi]

Its true that Confucian ministers in China's history very frequently chastised and criticized emperors for their bad decisions, and their advice was often ignored and they were sometimes officially punished.  The responsibility of Confucian ministers to protest the ruler's decisions were seen as an extension of children's rights to remonstrate with their parents.  It's also true that the ancient Confucian text Mengzi (Mencius) made the happiness and prosperity of the people the standard for whether or not the emperor had the right to rule ("Heaven looks through the people's eyes and hears through the people's ears.")  So, Confucianism very often (though not always) represented a force of moral and political resistance to misrule.  They just never had many allies in government and no power base to put Chinese emperors under much pressure to listen.  The only thing I'm not sure about is whether Confucian philosophers would ever support the rebellion of the populous.  They did believe that malevolent rulers should be removed from office, but generally only by family members or some other branch of a royal house that Heaven had judged worthy to take over (when Zhou conquered Shang, for instance). 

Daoist movements did spark real popular rebellions though, such as the Yellow Turban rebellion that brought down the Han Dynasty.  Chinese historiography therefore tends to associate Confucian predominance with successful rulership and Daost resurgence with dynastic decline.  But in truth, both Confucianism and Daoism often actively resisted bad rulers.

[Assistant to the Regional Manager Cathcon]

From what I've read about Daoism (that they see the government as un-natural), I'd say that they are Leftist-Libertarian, more or less, hippies.