[Buddha-l] Buddhism and Politics

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 10:00 -0600, Steven Rhodes wrote:
> Dear Curt,
> 
> I believe that there is another way to look at the term "libertarian." 
>  This is within the context of discerning two strands within 
> conservatism:  the authoritarian and the libertarian.  An authoritarian 
> conservative is one who wants to tell other adults how to conduct their 
> lives (you may not take drugs, you may not gamble, you may not have 
> abortions, etc.), whereas a libertarian conservative wants to minimize 
> government control over one's personal affairs.

This controversy raged among Christians in the Americas long before any
of the countries on these continents broke away from Europe. In the 17th
century Christians divided into just the two camps you have described,
and the disputes among them were often bitter and acrimonious. Sometimes
they were so acrimonious that people were publicly flogged, even hanged,
for taking the wrong view. As far as I have read, most of the floggers
were authoritarians, and most of the floggees were latitudinarians (also
known as libertarians, or pejoratively as libertines). Things have not
changed much.  

> Some might see the latter as "compassionate," others may not.

The argument of the latitudinarians has always been that human beings
are imperfect, and God forgives them. The argument of the authoritarians
has always been that God condemns sinners, so they should be killed
before their influence contaminates the rest of society. This helps
explain why so many people who shriek about the importance of culture of
life endorse the death penalty for every crime more serious than licking
a stamp.

> How to correlate this with Buddhist thought escapes me at the moment.

I see some signs that many Western Buddhists have taken sides in this
centuries-old dispute. It seems to me that most have taken sides with
the latitudinarian/libertarian faction, but a few (clearly the minority)
have gone the authoritarian route.

-- 
Richard Hayes