Han Fei Tzu

Basic Writings, translated by Burton Watson

New York: Columbia University Press, 1964

Contents:

(1) Introducing Han Fei Tzu through Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals:

(2) Leagalism and its Background

(3) Textual Review

(4) Guide Questions

“Thundering Dragon”

(1) Introducing Han Fei Tzu through Nietzsche’s

Genealogy of Morals:

Nietzsche’s philosophy is radically relative… this means that there are no universal truths like we saw (especially) in Plato and Descartes.  Instead, all meaning is relative; it is what it is because of context and interpretation.  For Nietzsche, the true truth is there that there is no truth; the idea of universal truth is illusion, a great joke perpetrated on humanity. 

Nonetheless, even within this radical relativity, we understand the will to power, that active affirmation of life in each person and in everything at large to be very close to an idea of an essential human nature.  Even the slave revolt of morals, which inwardized, inverted, and perverted the natural, however brutal, activity into a reactive moral code that is a will against life, still reveals moments of the will to power fighting back (see it in ‘criminal’ action, as the true origin of justice and law). 

Han Fei Tzu, who seems to pick up from within the middle of Nietzsche’s second essay, posits something akin to human nature; the ruler is capable of one closer to the nobles where as the ruled are very much like the well-taught post-slave-revolt beings.  He, Han Fei Tzu is trying to school the ruler as how to gain and maintain power while positing the being of the masses as driven by greed and the fear of punishment. 

Nietzsche told us that punishment, born out of vengeance, neither tames us nor reforms us nor deters us; instead, it increases our fear, hones our circumspection, and strengthens our control of instincts, which it to say, it hardens us, locates the wrong in getting caught, and teaches us to be more crafty next time.

The ruler, then, Han Fei Tzu counsels, must be stronger, harder, and craftier than the masses.  This “Way of the Ruler” he introduces in §5.  The ruler, he says, must manipulate the basic human impulses to greed and fear of punishment to guide us properly, like the yoke on oxen steer the unreflective beasts, by the “Two Handles” of punishment and reward, which he discusses in §7 and expands in §8.  Thursday’s reading, §12, will show how control can also be assured by the intelligent use of persuasion (propaganda) and, §17, caution against the dangers the ruler will face. 

Before we see the specifics of Han Fei Tzu’s guide-book, let me offer the briefest of a background sketch on this Chinese school of thought, later called “Legalism.”

(2) Legalism and its Background:

Given the brevity, please do keep in mind the potential for dreadful misrepresentation here ... my aim is only to highlight contrasting themes that we see in Han Fei Tzu’s writings!

Legalism, also called the School of Systems; it is generally agreed that Han Fei Tzu (ca. 280–233 b.c.e. -- nearly 200 years after the time of Lao Tzu, Confucius, and Athen’s restoration of democracy) is not likely the origin of the school, but is, certainly, one of the most persuasive and elegant presentations of its central beliefs.  China (culturally/religiously, politically, socially, etc.) was then dominated by Taoist and Confucian thought (with on and off state support) that had, on many points, been blended together and then mixed with traditional beliefs, Hinduism, and Buddhism.

Confucianism, born from Confucius’ Analects, is the most pragmatic of Chinese traditions.  The goal was a strong state through cultivation as opposed to warfare.  Education was the prime means to cultivate the people.  They prized intelligence and believed it was in the state’s best interest to educate all, especially in history, rites, and filial piety.  It was a conservative and humanistic school. 

Taoism, in contrast, detached the notion of Tao, the Way, from a pragmatic path to a Golden Age and made it into the indefinable goal, the means to reach the goal, and the way everything already is and should be, i.e. it is a universal principle or force of the natural world.  The Tao is known through feeling and intuition, not reason; when one is attuned to it, one cooperates with nature though wu wei, non-action.  This attunement is to not strive, but just to be.  Government is best when it is least; people are best when they are natural. 

While less relevant here, for comparison:

Hinduism, while a dharmic tradition, parallels Taoism in the diagnosis of the irreality of rationality and then defines reason as suffering.  Buddhism, born out of Hinduism and, in its Chinese interpretation, makes the Taoist rejection of reason and promotion of intuition into a pragmatic system to escape the reality of the world, which is suffering.*

Legalism essentially differs from this collective tradition as much as it knowingly co-ops its styles, tones, analogies, and language.  Note the first two paragraphs of §5, synthesizing Taoist and Buddhist tones to get a Legalist conclusion.  Note the Confucian reliance on history and the rectification of names in §7 and the Taoist interpretation of the Way in §8.  Legalism shares a concern with Confucianism to make the State powerful, but differs in that its power is meant for satisfying the wants and needs of the ruler (typically, these wants are wealth and power).  Legalism cared less about what these wants and needs were and more for how to achieve anything. 

This preference for the How over the What explains the emphasis on the “Two Handles,” the system of reward or punishment by which the ruler could steer his population.  Obviously, for such a system to work well, one needs to assume that human nature boils down to alternating greed and fear.  This diagnosis of human nature ignores the traditional characteristics assigned like faith, loyalty, and intelligence.  As the name suggests, Legalism encompasses intricate laws to determine who to favor or punish.  Han Fei Tzu is a realist to the degree of what we may be tempted to interpret as great cynicism and emotional frigidity; his arguments are strong and resonate with the need to control very large, heterogeneous populations with dramatic efficiency in order to create a perfectly ordered society. 

Considering, further, this main aspect within his system, the “Two Handles,” we may well be able to argue that Legalism as a whole has, itself, two handles by which to achieve its end of the perfect society: the Political and the Aesthetic.

By “political,” I mean all of the ostensible instructions, like reward and punishment, secrecy, hiding one’s desires, subterfuge, the mask of indifference, etc. 

By “aesthetic,” I mean the beautiful or pleasurable presentation of his/her rule and, also, the presentation of Han Fei Tzu’s writings to the ruler.  We explicitly see his use of aesthetics in “The Difficulties of Persuasion” and implicitly in the spectacle of giving rewards and punishments and the co-option of the tone of other schools. 

The “Two Handles,” textually, reward and punishment, for Han Fei Tzu are said to form a yoke, like that used to steer oxen, to steer the wills and actions of the people; legalism’s employment of the political and aesthetic equally uses two contrasting powers by which to form its system ad ensures its success: proper politics and proper aesthetics are two essential traits of the ruler and are his/her two essential tools for the maintenance of absolute control. 

This aesthetic, more precisely, at work in Legalism can be called persuasion or propaganda.  It is important to think these without value judgments to see their all-pervasiveness.  Propaganda is the social and political means to determine, to sometimes create, and always to pass on the desired opinion or action to a body of people.  Propaganda can therefore be theoretical or artistic, with loose lines separating the two, although the former typically appeals to our rationality, the latter to our sensibility.  Thus, of course, not all propaganda is evil--very good and noble causes often resort to as much propaganda as, say, scam artists or dictators.  The picture of the abused dog on the top of the letter requesting a donation for a society dedicated to the prevention of abuse is propaganda, as is the poster with Uncle Sam pointing to you and telling you he wants you to join the army, as is use of the buxom lady in the advertisements for watches, as is the vilification of the enemy in wartime, as is ... etc. 

The challenge of thinking through the aesthetic dimension of thought and action is that we, like Aristotle told us, like to think of ourselves as the rational animal.  We want to think that our thoughts and actions are based upon truth and logical, correct reasoning.  We like to think that we can spot bad logic and avoid it (that Twinky is not healthy just because it does use a natural grain!).    But, all those aspects that appeal to our other processes... ugh oh.  Is the package of crackers  with a muted background and cursive script and a British flag really better than that one with the cartoon mouse on it? 

Regardless of the end being promoted, propaganda is terribly effective; its efficiency should make it a matter for our further consideration.  Is it harmless?  Beneficial at times?  Dangerous and insulting to the intellect?  Do we want to be persuaded truthfully, i.e. by reason and truth, or through trickery by appealing to our base desires, hidden impulses, our weaknesses, or our laziness?    But, are not “gut instincts” also truthful and valid, even if not rational?  Isn’t presentation important?  Isn’t beauty an important part of life?  What if the beer with the foreign name makes you feel better, even if it is the same exact substance as the one with the race car on it?  Otherwise, how are we any different than a donkey who starves to death because it was standing perfectly mid-way between two utterly equal bales of hay, and, thus, it did not know which one to turn to and eat from?  Obviously, if one is intelligent and/or diligent and/or observant enough to understand what propaganda is about, one can also conceivably argue against it.  If, of course, one wants to argue against it -- Just because Socrates said that the unexamined life was not worth living, if you are happy with working your days, relaxing your nights, why should we bother with reflection?  Especially, when people like Nietzsche and Kierkegaard show us how hard and difficult it is to genuinely reflect.  One has to desire to really understand propaganda and the self, itself: our desires and our ignorance. 

Han Fei Tzu’s Two Handles presuppose human nature to be greedy and fearful at base.  Is this nature innate or indoctrinated?  If it is innate, we cannot break free from it, although can learn to be more reactive, to use Nietzsche’s term, and, thus, better survive within it.  If it is indoctrinated, then we have the possible freedom afforded us to think otherwise be learning how to, in Nietzsche’s term, again, reflect.  Let us move to the text and learn about what may help us to decide if we want perfect order or freedom at whatever cost -- neither choice is so simple or satisfying as they may seem.

Note:

* The Four Noble Truths: (1) Noble Truth of Sorrow; “birth is sorrow, age is sorrow, disease is sorrow, death is sorrow; contact with the unpleasant is sorrow, separation from the pleasant is sorrow, every wish unfulfilled is sorrow—in short all the five components of individuality are sorrow” (all quotes from Samyutta Nikaya, 5.421 ff.  Reprinted in de Bary, The Buddhist Tradition: in India, China, and Japan (New York: Vintage Books, Random House, 1972), 16-17).  (2) Noble Truth of the Arising from Sorrow; “it arises from craving, which leads to rebirth, which brings delight and passion, and seeks pleasure now here, now there—the craving for sensual pleasure, the craving for continued life, the craving for power.”  (3) Noble Truth of the Stopping of Sorrow; “it is the complete stopping of that craving, so that no passion remains, leaving it, being emancipated from it, being released from it, giving no place to it.”  (4) Noble Truth of the Way; which Leads to the Stopping of Sorrow (through the Noble Eightfold Path).  The Eight Fold Path is: (1) Right views. (2) Right resolve.  (3) Right speech.  (4) Right conduct.  (5) Right livelihood.  (6) Right effort.  (7) Right mindfulness.  (8) Right concentration.  Buddhism is described as “The Middle Way,” which means, it is a way that avoids the two paths of the pursuit of desires and of the pleasures which spring from desires, and the pursuit of pain and hardship which is ignoble.

(3) Textual Review:

§5: The Way of the Ruler (p.16-20)

(1) What is the “Way of the Ruler”?

Do not show your desires or else someone will take advantage of you.  (Remember, desires are wants, are things you lack, they are your weaknesses, show them and you reveal your Achilles’ heel--to switch cultural metaphores).  There are Tigers and Traitors at your gate and at your side, they will murder you and usurp your power. 

Note the Persuasive tactic: The first paragraph begins with a very Taoist (and Buddhist) sounding description of the Way and how to follow it through emptiness.  The last two sentences therein hearken aspects of Confucianism, namely, the idea of duty and the rectification of names.

The very Legalist conclusion drawn from it (first line of 2nd ¶): The ruler must not reveal his desires and will; if he does, his ministers will pretend to be what he wants.  If the ruler eliminates his preferences and all attributes that could affect the actions of others, then his followers will show their true natures. 

Notice the sharp difference between premises and conclusion: “The enlightened ruler reposes in nonaction above, and below his ministers tremble with fear” (p.17).  Why would Legalism adopt the language of another school to promote the opposite theories and actions?

This section paints the portrait of the ideal Legalist ruler:

One who hides one’s intentions

Conceals his sources

Does everything in secrecy

Why?  Because Tigers and Traitors lurk at the gate and the side of the ruler (18). 

(2) Who are the Tigers and Traitors? 

Tigers: coup leaders, those who murder the sovereign and usurp his power and position, those who gain the support of the people through fear.  What to do about them?  “Smash their cliques, arrest their backers, shut the gate, deprive them of all hope of support…” (18).

Traitors: those at the side of the ruler, controlled by evil ministers, spies.  What to do about them?  “Be immeasurably great, be unfathomably deep; make certain that names and results tally, examine laws and customs, punish those who act willfully…” (18).

(3) What are the Five Obstructions?

There are Five Dangers the ruler faces (Five Obstructions to his power, 18-9) and results:

(1) Ministers shut out the ruler         Ruler loses effectiveness

(2) Ministers get control of wealth and resources of stateRuler loses right to reward

(3) Ministers issue their own ordersRuler loses means of command

(4) Ministers do good in their own namesRuler loses claim to enlightenment

(5) Ministers build up cliques         Ruler loses supporters

When rewarding, the ruler must be as benign as a wonderful spring rain

When punishing, the ruler must be as terrible as a devastating storm

If too liberal in reward, the people will become lazy

If too lenient in punishment, the people will find it easy to do wrong

Always be equal-opportunity in reward and punishment: from the most base to most dear people.

§7: The Two Handles (p.30-34)

(1) What are the “Two Handles” and how do they work?

The enlightened ruler controls his ministers by: reward & punishment.

Reward: honor and reward

Punishment: mutilation and death

The ruler must remain in charge of reward and punishment.  Power resides in he who can punish and reward; if the ruler gives this power to his ministers, the people will hold him in contempt and desert him (30).

(2) How does this section reveal Han Fei Tzu’s co-option and mutation of Confucianism?

Notice the Confucian use of historical example to support the legitimacy of the argument (p.31).

Also note the Confucian rectification of names as ordering consistency in actions and rewards or punishments (31-2).  If one does less or more than their words, s/he gets punished.  If one trespasses on another’s duty, one is condemned to die (i.e. the hat-keeper covering the ruler instead of the robe-keeper, 32).

The Two Worries of the Ruler:

(1) Employ worthy people and all will pretend to be worthy and hide their true natures.

(2) Employ people arbitrary manner and state affairs will be bungled. 

Note heavy use of historical example to support this.

“Thus, if the ruler reveals what he dislikes, his ministers will be careful to disguise their motives; if he shows what he likes, his ministers will feign abilities they do not have” (34).  Ministers do not love their rulers; they serve him only in hope of substantial gain.

§8: Wielding Power (p.35-42)

(1) How does this section reveal Han Fei Tzu’s co-option & mutation of both Confucianism & Taoism?

This section is further instruction to the ruler as how to wield power couched in Taoist language, style, and imagery, for example, seek balance in everything: renounce riot and excess to maintain health, be expressionless to maintain power, act by reward and punishment to maintain order, put each in their place to be free from action and in accordance with the Tao.

Han Fei Tzu then infuses the Taoist intonations with Confucian commands: “If superior and inferior try to change roles, the state will never be ordered” (36) and “When names are correct, things stay in place; when names are twisted, things shift about” (36). 

Yet—these Confucian commands are side-by-side with a strong anti-Confucian anti-intellectualism (“Discard wisdom and wile, for, if you do not, you will find it hard to remain constant” (36)). 

Legalism’s central concerns (secrecy for deception, reward and punishment, centralized power, etc.) are incorporated into all of the dominant thought-systems (religious, social, political, etc.) of his time.  His beliefs are couched in Taoist and Confucian language despite those systems’ inherent contradictions and their shared contradiction with Legalist doctrines.  Then, we have the “inevitable” twists of logic to make this system ultimately natural and demanding personal responsibility despite the lack of viable personal freedom:

“Reward and punishment follow the deed; each man brings them upon himself.  Therefore, whether the result is pleasant or hateful, who dares to question it?” (38). 

(Consider how much this living and thinking with contrary belief systems resembles Nietzsche’s conclusion from the Lambs and Birds of Prey analogy (ideology needs deception) and his critique of tartufferie, religious hypocrisy, in his Genealogy, first essay.)

“If the ruler is not godlike in his isolation, his subordinates will find ways to move him” (38-9)—to be godlike is to be powerful, who can question a god? who can know a god? who can win a fight against a god?  The ruler, then, ought to be god-like.

It is clear when Han Fei Tzu writes: “the height of good government is to allow your subordinates no means of taking advantage of you” (39).

“The only reason the ministers do not assassinate their sovereign is that their parties and cliques are not strong enough” (40).

(2) What does the analogy of Pruning Trees mean?

Before ending this section, Han Fei Tzu re-emphasizes his point by relating an analogy about how the ruler must Prune one’s Trees… 

Pruning branches permits entry and prohibits a blockade; it permits a following to circle around the leader, not other private citizens.  It prohibits other trees from encroaching too much, coming too close.  It keeps the trees in check; forbids them from becoming over-grown and luxurious.  Sometimes, one must also up-root the trees to keep them from spreading.

§12: The Difficulties of Persuasion (p.73-79)

(1) What is the difficulty of persuasion?

Persuasion is not difficult b/c one does not know what to say, but b/c one does not know the mind of s/he to be persuaded and, thus, the proper words to say. 

If person X is out for virtue, talking about profit will bring shame and X will send you away.

If person X is out for profit, talking about virtue will hit deaf ears and X will ignore you.

If person X is out for profit but pretends he is for virtue, talking about virtue will bring only feigned interest and talking about profit will bring feigned horror and secret obedience (73). 

Success is through secrecy; failure if others find out (73-4).

(2) To whom is this section addressed?  Any ideas why?

Then, pages 74-5, (ostensibly) switch to instructions for the ruled (not the ruler) about the difficulties of persuasion.  These instructions include:

(1) awareness of the importance of secrecy and the danger that will set in if one violates (purposefully or not) the secrecy of the ruler and

(2) the importance of how the message is relayed and the importance of carefully selecting your topics of conversation and tone (do not praise the strong or weak, dwell on liked or disliked topics, speak bluntly or sketchy). 

(3) What are some examples of how to persuade others? 

Han Fei Tzu offers some Pointers on Persuasion:

Play up the good of the one you are speaking to and play down those points s/he is ashamed of.

Make the person’s desires seem like civic obligations.

Make the person’s objective that he can’t resist sound positive.

Make the impossible objectives sound negative.

If he desires the reputation for wisdom, offer him variations of your idea and let him build upon your ideas (and feign ignorance that he is doing such).

Hint to the personal benefits the other will receive in a plan.

Make him avoid danger by showing policies to be morally questionable and (via hint) against person interests.

Praise and reproach others who have similar traits to the one you are speaking with.

Do not dwell on any failure against how he views himself: don’t mention past problems to one who thinks himself strong; don’t point our errors of one who thinks oneself a great decision maker; don’t point out errors if one thinks oneself a great planner. 

“Make sure that there is nothing in your ideas as a whole that will vex your listener, and nothing about your words that will rub him the wrong way, and then you may exercise your powers of rhetoric to the fullest.  This is the way to gain the confidence and intimacy of the person you are addressing and to make sure that you are able to say all you have to say without incurring his suspicion” (76). 

You should do whatever it takes to gain the confidence of the ruler.  For example, the sage Yi Yin became a cook and the sage Po-li Hsi a slave to gain the ear of the ruler (76).

Deception and subterfuge are highly encouraged.  “It is not difficult to know a thing; what is difficult is to know how to use what you know” (78).

To have the ruler’s love, your actions and wisdom will be appreciated; if the ruler hates you, no matter what you say or do, you will be thrust aside.  Thus, for successful persuasion, you must attain the love of s/he you wish to persuade and know well the loves and hates of whom you speak to (78-9).

Shouldn’t we ask about the disjuncture?  If the ruler obeys Han Fei Tzu’s earlier sections, then the minister cannot discern the loves and hates of the ruler or effectively use any of these tricks of persuasion.  Thus, what does that say about Han Fei Tzu’s faith in the rulers?

A Tangent:

To veer from the text and contextualize this within a different framework, could we not interpret Han Fei Tzu as appealing to what may well be a universal tendency, judging from the excessive use of propaganda (again, think this with a suspension of value judgment) today in every aspect of life?  For instance, while we think of propaganda as an aesthetic mode of persuasion (think in terms of Kierkegaard’s “Lyric” of Nietzsche’s hyperbolic style), that is, as an aeshteticization of the political (the desire to effect concrete action from an appeal to the intuitive faculties), do we not see this in the commercialization in today’s society?  Or, as Nietzsche said in his second essay in the Genealogy, that rationalization of culture that we, as the measure of all things, have made everything have a price and, thus, capable of buying, selling, or trading anything and everything?   This renders life one half commercial and one half political, where the boundaries are fluid and not exclusive.   

This means the question is: do we accept persuasion?  Do we encourage it, ask for it, make it more and more powerful; do we need it?  Can we escape it?  What would we have to do to eliminate or minimize persuasion?  Why would we desire to do so?  Is there an authenticity within persuasion or is all persuasion an inauthenticity? 

What does it mean to say that life is commercial and political?  What is the aesthetics of the commercial?  It is the politics of style: of production and consumption.

Walter Lippmann (1889-1974), the esteemed journalist directly involved in the development of governmental propaganda over American opinion, argued that such persuasion was necessary in democracy and that people truly needed to be lied to.  Doesn’t this sound like Nietzsche’s conclusion about the lambs and birds of prey analogy?  That ideology needs deception?  And, even, that we would rather will nothing than to not will at all?  Hence, our quick submersion into inauthenticity and a nihilistic asceticism?

Lippmann said that advertising was a sign that business people were “take[ing] charge of consumption as well as production.”  Advertising-as-propaganda stylized both the objects for sale and the “happy” consumers who were buying the products.  This is an invention; a creation of thing and buyer, of the emotions one now must feel when buying, making, being.  This is the birth of a “new” reality, a fake reality.   But, then, how do we conceive of fake and real?  If it can be constructed, likely, we are working from a relative model, not an essential one, but, does construction immediately translate into something false, wrong, something that we ought to rebel against?  If you see morality or religion or any belief system to have no “truely-true” roots, does that mean it is any less than real, valuable, or, even (paradoxically) true? But, again, by what criteria do we answer these questions?  How do we know when to cry foul?  If you committed no crime, should you be worried about a loss of privacy?  If you are not ... {fill in the blank, a muslim, a hispanic, a young black male, etc.}, should you be bothered to think about racial profiling?  Or, even, since we can see when nationalism can make a country strong, when a nation needs this, when do we caution against it?  When do we call nationalism fanaticism? 

How, then, do we maintain the capacity for critique, genuine, real critique, in the face of the upturning of universals and the embrace of relativism or construction-ism?  When we have come to see the multi-dimensionality of all questions or issues, how do we maintain a capacity to evaluate these different perspectives?  To whom do we listen to or let ourselves be persuaded by when we have a culture fully embracing the aesthetics of politics?  We have made politics into a theatrical production (to be staged, managed, and sold).  Society has become a spectacle.  How do we think, these days? 

For comparison:

“Words are ammunition.  Each word an American utters either helps or hurts the war effort. 

He must stop rumors.  He must challenge the cynic and the appeaser. 

He must not speak recklessly. 

He must remember that the enemy is listening”

—Government Information; Manual for the Motion Picture Industry Office of War Information.

“Is there really enough pride, courage, self-assurance, intellectual energy, responsibility,

freedom of the will, to make philosophy possible in our world today?”

—Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals, Essay III, §x.

§17: Precautions Within the Palace (p.84-89)

(Back to addressing the ruler)

(1) Who should you trust?

Never, ever trust anyone.  Do not trust your consort or own son, others will abuse this trust and take you out.  “…ministers never for a moment cease trying to spy into their sovereign’s mind…” (84). 

Consorts, concubines, and heirs will wish for your early death (85).

The motivation for their desire for your death is not out of hatred; it is (natural) for profit (86). 

This, then, is the reason why the Ruler should obey these commands and cautiously proceed with plans, manage his ministers, etc (87).

Do not over work the people.  Too much forced labor will make them feel afflicted and driven to change the situation by the creation of “local power groups” (like what we might call labor unions, 87).

(4) Guide Questions:

§5: The Way of the Ruler (p.16-20);

(1) What is the “Way of the Ruler?”

(2) Who are the Tigers and Traitors? 

(3) What are the Five Obstructions?

§7: The Two Handles (p.30-34);

(1) What are the “Two Handles” and how do they work?

(2) How does this section reveal Han Fei Tzu’s co-option and mutation of Confucianism?

§8: Wielding Power (p.35-42);

(1) How does this section reveal Han Fei Tzu’s co-option and mutation of both Confucianism and Taoism?

(2) What does the analogy of Pruning Trees mean?

§12: The Difficulties of Persuasion (p.73-79);

(1) What is the difficulty of persuasion?

(2) To whom is this section addressed?  Any ideas why?

(3) What are some examples of how to persuade others? 

§17: Precautions Within the Palace (p.84-89).

(1) Who should you trust?

Other questions about this work as a whole:

(1) Describe the system he promotes.

(2) What kind of society would result if all obeyed his system?

(3) What kind of person must this ruler be?  What must his ministers and citizens be like?

(4) Do you agree with his promotion of persuasion?  Do you agree with his techniques for persuasion?