The "War of All" or the Tao Te Ching: A brief look at the justice of self-defense

Introduction

Prussian philosopher, Carl Von Clausewitz, argued in his book On War that war is nothing more than policy by other means. War he equates to the duel. In which two opposing forces struggle to incapacitate the other in order to render them helpless to resist them. In this sense, in the political sphere, all people everywhere impose policy, from nations, to cities, to communities and cultures, in peaceful contracts and deals, to violent individuals in the bars and on the streets. Of course, there is a constant battle between criminals and police - each imposing their policy upon the other, the latter according to the laws of our regime, the former by any means necessary.

In our society the sovereign rules supreme, and any force beyond what the general will deems good for the community, simply put, is against the laws of the state which exist in order to preserve the peace of the society. But there are cracks in the system. For as Hobbes says where the sovereign cannot enforce the law with the sword there is no law, for nothing is easier broken than a man's word.

This leaves us citizens with a dilemma. As long as our regime stays strong and has a strong legal system and police force, we don't have to worry much about others imposing their will upon us overtly (although we still must worry about others covertly imposing their will against us using the system of schools, education, the media, etc. This imposition through formal and informal education however is a topic for another paper. In this paper I am concerned with the duel, violence in the civil sphere, when overt policy imposition turns to violence for whatever reason). However, when there are gaps in the ability for the police force to impose the regime's policy upon criminals (enemies of the state - those who would impose their own policy contra to the policy of the regime which makes them, by that very definition, criminals) what can a citizen justly do in defending themselves against such internal enemies? Also, what duty do we as citizens have to prepare ourselves in order to defend ourselves, our loved ones, our property, and ultimately our regime?

Largely the answers to these questions would differ upon the regime in which one abides, and the laws of that regime. For us Canadians, what one can lawfully do to another in self defence would of course be covered by our local laws and Charter of Rights, which one may arguably trace back to Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. However, in this paper, I wish to discuss, if possible, what is permanent and universal to the duties of a citizen to defend their own. As I have said above, it is plausible to believe all regimes have cracks in the system where the Leviathan cannot watch or strike all the time, especially ours. It is almost certainly an undeniable fact that civil violence (muggings, street fights, domestic violence) occurs in every city and in every state, in every regime and in every time in history. The only difference is in what extent each regime justifies such actions. As such, it seems the citizen has reason to investigate regardless of era or regime what is their duty and prudence in planning to, and actually defending themselves from local brigands, and other citizens who for whatever reason wish to impose their policy upon them by physical means.

The Excellent Citizen

Ever since, and especially during, ancient times the common citizen has been aware that at any moment the polity may crumble and war will be upon them. Or even if the polity still imposes its policy upon the citizens that an aggressive internal force may intend to impose their will on you when the regime is not watching (which may even be the forces of said regime). As such, an axe or shield has never been far from grasp, and the inability to fight with little notice only comes with the advent of increased civilisation. It seems, save for perhaps ancient Sparta, the stronger a sovereign becomes the more un-warlike and unable to defend oneself the populace becomes. This however leaves citizens ripe to be abused - the wolves only pray on the infirm, those who cannot defend themselves.

As such, and for other more virtuous (and less practical) reasons, philosophers have professed an ethic for excellence of both body and soul. Lao Tsu argues in the Tao Te Ching:
...
In dwelling, be close to the land.
In meditation, go deep in the heart.
In dealing with others, be gentle and kind.
In speech, be true.
In ruling, be just.
In business, be competent.
In action, watch the timing.
No fight: No blame.


As can be seen in this verse, Lao Tsu claims in the Tao Te Ching (which means the path and/or laws to and/or of virtue) that being excellent entails both virtue of mind and body. With this, being ready for battle (watching the "timing") goes hand in hand - one who is virtuous both can and ought watch the conditions for battle and act if and when the time is right. If the human is a political animal, as Aristotle argues, then the excellent human must also be an excellent citizen. The excellent human is the one which is by their nature the most ready for all things, not necessarily by ingenuity (or effectiveness in the Machiavellian sense) but as being one with the Tao (enlightened, or virtuous).

This sentiment is echoed in perhaps a more explicit and structured argument approximately a century later and many miles west by Plato in his masterpiece on education called the Republic. For he says, "Then the man who's going to be a fine and good guardian of the city for us will in his nature be philosophic, spirited, swift, and strong." In Plato's terms, the man who is a good guardian of the city is the man who is virtuous and excellent of both body and soul. It is this kind of man, this ‘lean dog', who has the spirited, strong, and trained body required for excellence at combat, and yet who are gentle to those they know. As such, this kind of human is an excellent guardian of both the city, but all that they know and love. Consequently, it seems it is this virtuous citizen who may defend their own best if the time arrises that another wishes to impose an unjust will upon them. The excellent defender in combat is one which is trained in both body and mind in order to become excellent, that is to say to make them naturally as good as they can be. Being excellent at combat and defence comes by virtue of being excellent.

Effect vs. Excellence

That is not to say that our excellent citizen who may have a higher likelihood of defending themselves ought not use any effective means available to them. Certainly, those who wish to impose their policy upon us will use whatever means they deem necessary to do so. As such, if we wish to be and are justified in being effective at defending ourselves, and there is no prior recourse for our defence, it seems to follow we need to include in the training of these capable citizens the latest and most effective means, techniques, and even equipment that is required for our defence. For our day and age, this would include knowledge and adequate training in knives, blunt weapons, chemical deterrents (pepper spray, etc), and perhaps even firearms. However, by this argument does it follow that all citizens ought to be trained in such weapons, or even more extremely, walk about armed with such weapons?

At this point it becomes prudent to return to the original question of my paper: What duty to themselves and others does a citizen have in terms of their own self defence against an internal aggressor both in terms of action and preparation for possible action, and is there a trans-societal, trans-political, and trans-historical answer to this question? It would seem that according to the arguments of the ancients above that the most well trained individual, the most excellent or virtuous man, is naturally the best at all things human, including physical defence. The ancient philosophers were well aware that attack could come at any time and the wise human knew how to defend themselves, and what they loved, against it. In their terms it seems that this defence entailed being excellent of both mind and body. As such, it seems in their view that the human is justified in educating for excellence and preservation of what was deemed "the good", which at the very least included caring for and preserving the self and one's close relations.

As Clausewitz argues in his book On War nearly two thousand years later, regimes that fail to maximize their force during peace time simply make themselves prey of the regimes that do desire to maximize their destructive force at all times. As I have argued above, if one looks to society the same would apply to individual citizens. As such it seems prudent and the duty of all citizens to becomes as excellent (in body and soul) as possible in the sense argued for by the ancient philosophers, if nothing else for their own preservation. Those who do not are making prey of themselves.

But is simple physical and mental strength and harmony between them enough in our technologically ridden time? And this still does not answer the question when it is just to defend oneself and to what extent. If one attacks you with a knife is it just for you lop off his leg with a sword? Or are you entitled only to run away? Being in better physical and mental shape then an enemy will certainly even in our day and age help with physical combat, but what if those who would impose their will upon you would do so at the end of a gun? Does this mean you are justified in carrying a similar weapon to prepare for such eventualities? Does it mean you are just in using such a weapon?

In some sense, these particular questions surpass the realm of that which is permanent and universal, which is my focus here. Suffice to say whether or not it is legal for one to walk about armed with the latest weapons is a matter of local law (and of course a source of much heated debate for our neighbour to the south, who are more "lenient" in this regard, but not so much of a concern here - billion dollar gun registries for farmer's shotguns not withstanding). However, it seems that if one has the chance of being accosted by a gun toting criminal, and there are sufficient cracks in that person's regime's ability to defend them against this criminal, it would certainly and permanently seem prudent for that citizen to have at least the knowledge of how to prevent or limit damage to themselves from such an attack, if not the actual arms and training and even possibly equipment to make for an adequate defence. In fact, if the regime to the south is a Hobbesian state as is often said, then in these particular terms one may argue that when the sovereign cannot defend you, one is entitled to go back to the state of nature, in which case you have every right to defend yourself by all means necessary.

But this strays from my purpose. It is always and everywhere that people need to defend themselves. No regime is so efficient or totalitarian that it can watch everyone or be everywhere at all time. Therefore to defend oneself one needs the amount of training and knowledge (in becoming universally excellent, and particularly effective) as much as their particular time, place, and personal nature dictates. As much as it is likely they will be attacked in their current regime, with what means they will be attacked, and to the extent dictated by their final good or natural excellence. To that end it will always follow that increasing their own inherent excellence (body and mind) will be an integral part of their preparation for self defence (to whatever degree is appropriate, and sometimes follow that citizens may need to arm themselves with extra equipment. In some places in Italy during Renaissance times this may have included a knife or a Rapier, in some places in America today that may include a nine millimetre Gloc handgun.

This being said however, a melee attack is (and always has been) for humans the most primary and universal threat, the threat coming from those toting the most sophisticated weapons being less likely overall. As such, in a place where guns are common, a defender's defence strategy (training and equipment) must take this into consideration. In other words, in this regime they must be knowledgeable in where not to go to prevent conflict (where it is likely they will encounter those aggressors with weapons), in how to react in order to reduce likelihood of damage, and in the most drastic situation in how to disarm such aggressor if possible and lastly to carry a weapon of equal or sufficient force to render the aggressor incapable of resisting your will. But overall, a melee attack from an aggressor (internally - from a fellow subject) is the threat which we must be concerned over most of history, and even now in our more or less well policed regime of Canada.

In Clausewitzian terms, if one must be concerned with the possibility of physical violence or melee attack then one must increase their "relative strength". Strength for Clausewitz is the physical force or strength and mental strength (or will) of the fighting unit. In terms of individual defence what is the best method of increasing ones excellence of body and mind? For the mind, one may arguably respond philosophic education makes one most generally thoughtful about all things and most spiritually excellent. And in practical terms related to our topic, education may and ought to include practical self-defence knowledge which educate in practical terms what to do and not to do in current day situations.

Is knowledge and excellence of mind enough to suffice for a defence strategy for citizens in any regime, or especially ours? Maybe in our well policed regime. Maybe not. Certainly it is an integral part. But two factors conspire to demand further steps be taken. Humans are a dual creature: part spiritual and part physical, and both parts may be damaged. Even the best planning and the most keen mind cannot be proof against unwanted physical attacks, especially for those in a typical position to be attacked. As such, it follows that if it is prudent and necessary to educate and perfect one part of the human essence for self defence, the other part must also be perfected and made excellent. That of the body. For this, we turn to the Martial Arts and the ancient art of Tai Chi.

Martial Arts and Tai Chi

Kung Fu movies, "Tai Bo", and pop-culture aside, the Martial Arts are an ancient practice dating back some argue to the time of when Lao Tsu wrote the Tao Te Ching. In fact, practitioners of Taoism claim that various styles of Tai Chi are a natural extension of Taoism's dictates.

Whatever the origin Martial Arts train and perfect the body for physical conflict and are usually oriented to self-defence and sometimes to natural body harmony. Although the Martial Arts differ from what are called hard styles (Karate, Tai Qwon Do, boxing, etc) to soft styles (Tai Chi, Aikido, Jujitsu), and from external styles (Karate, some forms of Hungar or Northern Mantis Kung Fu) to internal styles (Tai Chi, Qigong, and Bagua Zhan) they all share one aspect all forms target specifically against melee attacks - even against armed opponents. The hard external styles focus on external strikes, blocks, and body strength to attack the enemy, the internal and soft styles focus on redirection, sweeps, movement and internal coordination or concentration (or an energy sometimes mystically referred to as Chi) for self defence and other amazing and much debated feats. Certainly athleticism in general can increase body excellence - but it is Martial Arts in particular which (when educated correctly - more on this below) can best increase the fighting ability of the defender and the spiritual and bodily health of the defender.

As has been argued, it seems that potentially any citizen may be subject to the aggressive imposition of someone's will, even in the most heavily policed regimes, especially physically weaker members of society. If Martial Arts can both increase the defender's ability to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their own, and make themselves more able to resist the aggressive wills of other citizens (not to mention all other hostile organisms) then it seems that a prudent and dutiful citizen ought to participate in the Martial Arts to some extent, especially the members which are more likely prey. Surely the greatest weapon of the citizen and proof against attack is knowledge - but total prevention of attack in even the most just regimes is impossible and the losses can be permanent and irrevocable. As such, it would be both prudent and dutiful for all citizens who desire their own preservation, and the preservation of their own and loved ones, to maximize their inherent force and to train themselves in the physical methods of self defence as taught by and ever since the ancients of China and Tibet to the extent that is appropriate to their particular nature and time and place.

But numerous questions erupt at my last point: what is just for this Martial Artist to do? Won't they be violent? How can the old do it? Suffice to say, as I have argued, if any human wishes to avoid having their will being imposed upon (and the will of their loved ones) they are duty bound to undertake whatever means are necessary to their preservation. The best means available are becoming inherently excellent, in both body and soul as this can never be unarmed from them and is always relevant as long as humans can be physically harmed. Second to this is becoming practically effective, in both technique, training and equipment for their time and place. All of this follows only in so far as the training process does not reduce their ability to 1) become excellent and 2) defend themselves.

As such, the old or the unsuited for education in excellence arguably ought not be educated in this way. However, it follows that reciprocally those who cannot defend themselves ought not willfully place themselves in harm's way, unless they have no other choice, in which case they ought have friends and protectors who may defend them in their stead. True, we certainly feel our grandmothers and grandfathers, our daughters, sisters and friends, ought to be able to walk about unmolested. But this condition does not always hold (in any time or regime) even in the best parts of town or campus, not to mention the places in any city anyone simply ought not walk. If one insists on going where the Leviathan cannot protect them (and insist on having a right to do so), then they have a reciprocal duty to take whatever measures of security are required to reasonably ensure their defence in these threatening areas. One who cares for our good ought to take care of us who does not know what our good is.

And here Tai Chi becomes prevalent to my discussion again. For it is the answer to the cautioning questions above regarding the old participating, the practitioners becoming violent, and the means questionable. The answer is simple - the various styles of Tai Chi are not trained in or with aggression, in fact it tries to oppose and reduce it and focus on body control and reducing aggressive tensions in the body and mind of the practitioner in order to become most excellent and reciprocally, most effective. A total harmony of consciousness and body. For as Lao Tsu writes:
...
Weapons are instruments of fear; they are not a wise man's tools.
He uses them only when he has no choice.
Peace and quiet are dear to his heart,
And victory no cause for rejoicing.

And so to do the current practitioners of Tai Chi (both Taoists and non-Taoist Tai Chi) emulate. Furthermore, the movements are simple and natural to the extent that only the most infirm could not participate. As such, it is right for old and young, men and women.

But is it effective? A demonstration of its effectiveness cannot obviously be had here. Logically any amount of self defence training would suffice to increase the possible force of the defender. As it turns out, Tai Chi (sometimes combined with other internal styles of Bagua Zhan or Kung Fu) has proven to be immensely effective, and for many centuries the Shaolin monks of ancient China were sought after for their battle prowess. However, today, in our time, for my argument here, any amount of training would suffice - Tai Chi being extra useful in that it is easy on the body, increases natural coordination, balance and muscle endurance in a natural non-jarring way, and in no way inculcates aggressive tendencies the way other harder styles might.

As well, in terms of our main question, what is just for our defender to accomplish in battle becomes answered in a way we may not have suspected. For unlike war, in which Clausewitz argues total destruction is necessarily the most just in the long run, Tai Chi as an art (and the other soft grappling styles) provides the practitioner the option to hold and restrain an attacker with or without damaging them. Sometimes a simple arm lock is enough to dissuade an attacker, or carry them to the authorities or other help. If not and the situation warrants, the Martial Artist can switch to more damaging, painful, permanent, and persuasive means to avoid their will being imposed upon by incapacitating their foe in order to coerce them to agreeing to not fight. But Tai Chi, as opposed to some harder styles which only focus on aggression and attack, provides the excellence of body and will in order to effectively defend oneself and persevere peacefully and calmly in the face of danger. As Lao Tsu writes, weapons and violence are not the wise man's tools, they use them only when they have no other choice. However, in order to use their natural weapons (being the most effective and inherent weapons - the body, the mind, and the harmony thereof), the wise and virtuous human must be educated how.


Works Cited and Consulted

1. Plato, The Republic, trans by Allan Bloom (Basic Books, USA, 2nd Ed., 1991).

2. International Taoist Tai Chi Society, http://www.taoist.org/english/, Copyright © International Taoist Tai Chi Society, 2003.

3. Nine Dragon Baguazhang, http://www.internalartscenter.com/Nine_Dragon_Arts/
nine_dragon_arts.html, Copyright Internal Arts Center, 2003.

4. Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching, trans by Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English, (Vintage Books Edition, 1972),

5. Carl Von Clausewitz, On War, trans by Micheal Howard and Peter Paret, (Princeton University Press, 1984).

6. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On the Social Contract, trans by Donald A. Cress, (Hackett Publishing Co., 1987).

7. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, (Hackett Publishing Co., 1994).