The Useless Tree

June 4th

     Attention must be paid.

     Here is something from Mencius to contemplate, as we remember the hundreds and hundreds of people who lost their lives on this day nineteen years ago:

Prince T'ien asked: "What is the task of a worthy official?"
"To cultivate the highest of purposes," replied Mencius.
"What do you mean by the highest of purposes?"
"It's simple: Humanity and Duty.  You defy Humanity if you cause the death of a single innocent person, and you defy Duty if you take what is not yours.  What is our dwelling place if not Humanity?  And what is our road if not Duty?  To dwell in Humanity and follow Duty - that is the perfection of a great person's task."
(13.33)

    A single innocent person....

   And here is something to read, a short piece that reflects upon the historical significance of the day.

Wen Jiabao is better than Mao Zedong

      I have just finished grading final exams for my Chinese politics class.  One question asked students to compare and contrast Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping.  Most answers emphasized the differences but some telling similarities were noted.  So, events like the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution are in my mind today, and they lurk in the background as I read the news of the aftermath of the terrible Sichuan earthquake.  That is what has led to today's blog idea: Wen Jiabao is better than Mao Zedong.

     I will not go overboard with the praise for Wen's handling of the earthquake tragedy.  He has certainly done a good job in rallying people to respond to the crisis and he has shown a genuinely caring attitude and heart.  I will wait, however, before I become one of his supporters on Facebook.  Let's see how he, and the Party, deal with the longer-term issues of why school buildings performed so badly, and whether the relative openness of the media coverage continues (it seems not), and how re-building proceeds in coming months and years.  I will give Wen this much, however (much to the delight of my Chinese nationalist friends) he has proven to be a more effective leader in a crisis situation than George W. Bush - but, then again, that's not saying much...

     The larger, and to me more interesting, comparison is that between Wen and Mao.   What would Mao have done under the circumstances of the Sichuan earthquake?  It is, of course, impossible to know.  But let's consider how he actually responded when confronted with the emerging disaster of the Great Leap Forward in 1959.  Instead of accepting that his ideology had created famine and starvation, he resisted reality and fought back politically, sacking the man who dared stand up to him, Defense Minister Peng Dehuai.  The lives of millions of people mattered less to him than his own ideological "correctness" and his own political position.  It took two more horrible years after the Lushan Plenum in 1959 before the country could begin to drag itself up from the man-made horror of the Great Leap.  Some leaders, most notably Deng, recognized what had happened and they embraced a more pragmatic orientation to avoid such calamities in the future.  But not Mao.  He attacked again, in 1966, against the pragmatists, fomenting the Cultural Revolution and casting the country into ten years of political chaos. 

     One conclusion to draw from this sorry history is that Mao did not "serve the people," as the famous slogan has it.  He served himself and his ideology, much to the people's harm.

     Wen is not like this.  His presence in the quake zone has communicated his commitment to responding to the immediate needs of the people there.  Yes, it is a propaganda coup for the central government, but that does not mean that Wen is not genuinely involved and moved by the disaster.  He obviously is.  The pictures of him next to the destroyed school, crouching down and peering into a pit where child victims lay, are truly heart-rending.  I'm sure his heart was rent.   And his being there put pressure on local officials to attend to the rescue and recovery work.   He has done a good job.

      Wen's truer enactment of "serve the people" makes sense in the context of post-Mao China (or should we, at this point, be saying post-post-Mao China?).  The regime's legitimacy has shifted away from ideologyl to performance, away from Marxist rationalizations to the delivery of a better standard of living.  Indeed, I would call it "Mencian legitimacy," after the sensibility of Mencius, who continually demanded of rulers that they attend to the needs of the people.  Ironically, "serve the people," captures the Mencian spirit. 

     Wen, in particular, has presented himself as a man of the people, a leader who cares for the poor and powerless.  It was he who went to a train station in January, during the snow crisis, to publicly apologize.  He plays the role of a modern Mencian well.

   Mencian legitimacy is not necessarily a democratic legitimacy.  As in the PRC now, it may not require electoral competition for executive and legislative power.   An "enlightened" authoritarianism, which was the standard in Mencius' own time, may be able to respond to popular needs, as now seems to be the case in Sichuan.  Indeed, a focused and centralized political authority may be able to act more quickly and effectively, at least for a time, than a slower and sloppier democratic system.  It seems certain that, thus far, the response of Wen and the central government has bolstered regime legitimacy in the eyes of many, many Chinese citizens.  The leadership is seen to be doing the right thing, and doing it with real care and conviction.   Mencian legitimacy can strengthen authoritarianism.

     But Mencian legitimacy can also work against authoritarianism (just as it can work against democratically-elected leaders who fail the test of serving the people, as is arguably now the case with Bush).  What happens if the grief of the people turns into anger against officials?  Might the people then demand that they should have a greater role in determining who their leaders should be?  If, as Mencius says, "Heaven sees through the eyes of the people, and Heaven hears through the ears of the people," then what should happen if the people claim a greater role in the selection of political leaders?  Heaven could come between the Party and the people.  I wonder what Wen would do then?

Angry Black Mencius

      A controversy of sorts has emerged over the planned Washington DC statue of Martin Luther King.  Apparently, some organization called the US Commission on Fine Arts, which has a role in the proceedings, feels that the model of the monument is too "confrontational."  Eugene Robinson has an op-ed in today's Washington Post that sums things up nicely:

At issue is the statue that will stand as King's official monument in Washington. The arts commission, which rules on the aesthetics of such memorials, has sent a letter to the Martin Luther King Jr. National Memorial Project Foundation complaining that the depiction is "a stiffly frontal image, static in pose, confrontational in character."

What they thought they were getting, commissioners wrote, was a "dynamic" and "meditative" King. Leave aside for the moment the question of how any sculptor is supposed to make someone look dynamic and meditative at the same time. The point is that the arts commission, for some reason, was not comfortable with the image of a stern-faced, 28-foot-tall black man who has his arms crossed.

 I am totally with Robinson on this:

Here's what is really going on: It's clear that some people would prefer to remember King as some sort of paragon of forbearance who, through suffering and martyrdom, shamed the nation into doing the right thing. In truth, King was supremely impatient. He was a man of action who used pressure, not shame, to change the nation. The Montgomery bus boycott, to cite just one example, was less an act of passive resistance than a campaign of economic warfare. Yes, he knew that televised images of black people walking miles to work would help mold opinion around the world. But he also knew that depriving the bus companies of needed revenue would hit the Jim Crow system where it really hurt.

     King was confrontational.  He had to be.  He was struggling against powerful political and historical forces.  In defiance he spoke truth to power, he demanded that right be done.  So why not remember him in all the glory of that struggle and defiance?

       In a way, King reminds me of Mencius, who also bravely spoke truth to power.  While perhaps Mencius would not have pursued the same political tactics as King, he would have recognized the moral purpose of the civil rights struggle.  Mencius, like King was quite willing to confront power holders with their shortcomings, as in this passage (Lau translation):

Mencius went to P'ing Lu.  "Would you or would you not," said he to the governor, "dismiss a lancer who has failed three times in one day to report for duty?"

"I would not wait for the third time."

"But you yourself have failed to report for duty many times.  In years of famine, close on a thousand of your people  suffered, the old and the young being abandoned  in the gutter, the able-bodied scattered in all directions."

"It was not within my power to do anything about this."

"Supposing a man were entrusted with the care of cattle and sheep.  Surely he ought to seek  pasturage and fodder for the animals.  If he found that this cold not be done, should he return his charge to the owner or should he stand by and watch the animals die?"

"In this I am at fault."... (IIB.4)

     Mencius gets right up in the face of the governor.  When the latter tries to shirk his responsibilities, Mencius comes at him again from another discursive angle.  He was determined to make the political powers-that-be do the right thing, and he did, in this case at least.   There is a certain defiance and confrontation in Mencius however much it might have been expressed in distinct cultural practices of another time and place.  And that is rather like Martin Luther King.

       Yes to the "confrontational" King statue!

Realizing our Parents

    Laura, at 11D, calls our attention to an article in the Sunday NYT Magazine by Bob Morris, in which he reflects upon his desires to push his elderly father to physical activity beyond what the older man wants.   Laura sums it up nicely in her title, "improving our parents."   The story Morris tells ends with some regret that he pushed his father too hard.

     I know this feeling, having watched my mother die slowly, over the course of two years or so, of cancer (my father died suddenly of a heart attack years before).  There were times during her illness when I pressed and prodded her to do more and better than she was.  And there were times when I had to make big decisions that she resisted.   Morris gets at the selfish undercurrent of such anxieties:

...What he really needed was more affection, not exercise. Yet I kept trying to impose my will on both my parents right to the end. How dare they become so old?

I think about them now, when I go out walking with such determination it’s almost as if I’m trying to walk away from myself....

     The demise of our parents, inevitable as it may be, is a picture of our own demise, and that is one reason why we are so uncomfortable with it.  When faced with the physical decline of a loved one, we have to walk a fine line between doing what is best for them and what is most pleasing and affirming to ourselves.  Knowing the right action is not easy.  But we have to struggle to find the right thing.  Mencius comes to mind, my mind at least.  In describing one of the great sage-rulers, Shun, Mencius says that he

...knew that if you don't realize your parents you aren't a person, and if you don't lead your parents to share your wisdom you aren't a child.

 I like that rendition, "realize your parents."  What he means is that in our own actions, as we perform our daily duties, we are not only doing for ourselves but we are enacting the honor and respect of our parents.  That sounds like a heavy burden, and Confucians mean it to be a conscious responsibility.   But it is precisely in that activity that we make ourselves human.  Notice, too, how Mencius expects us to lead our parents to share our wisdom.  In other words, as we grow to adulthood there will be things we know better than them, and these things we must share with them, that is our responsibility as children.

      Whatever his regrets in pushing too far, Morris was right to seriously engage the question of what it was that his father needed.  He tried to do the right thing.  The biggest challenge is to keep our own expectations about what we think they want from getting in the way of realizing them.

Mencius on Taxes

    Yesterday was tax day in the US, the day when federal, and I believe most state, income tax forms must be filed.  For many years I used to do my taxes by myself, and this day was certainly a worry for me.  A couple of years ago, however, due to income from my writing which came to define me, in the eyes of the tax authorities, as an independent business (and my wife, due to her various forms of community involvement became an independent contractor), I turned to an accountant.  Paying someone else to figure out what I must pay the government does take some of the pain out of it....

    In any event, I realized yesterday that I should do a post on Mencuis and taxes.  He has much to say on the topic.  But the idea popped into my head as I was cleaning the dishes after dinner and my text was not there with me.  But it is here with me now, so let's jump right in.

    Mencius is a low tax man.  I suspect that he calls for limited taxes because, in his time, a serious source of injustice and inequality was rapacious abuse of state power to extract revenue from society.  Notice in this passage how he focuses on rents as opposed to taxes or tariffs or tribute:

Collect rent in the markets but no tax, or enforce laws but collect no rent - then every merchant throughout all beneath Heaven will rejoice and long to trade in your markets.  Conduct inspections at the border but collect no tax - then every traveler throughout all beneath Heaven will rejoice and long to travel your roads.    Have farmers help with public fields but collect no tax - then every farmer in all beneath Heaven will rejoice and long to work your land.  Don't demand tributes in cloth from families and villages - then people throughout all beneath Heaven will rejoice and long to become your subjects.  (3.5)

    He understands the state's need for revenue, but "rent" here suggests limited and fixed annual (or some period of time, monthly...) levy.  While a percentage of the value of production or commerce might yield higher receipts for the government, it would also impose greater burdens on society.

      We should not take from the passage above the idea that Mencius was anti-tax.  No.  He was interested in limiting taxation.  The famous well field system that he advocated, which reserved one farm plot out of nine for communal work and aristocratic requisition, could be understood as a form of taxation.  Thus, Mencius says:

In the countryside, tax people one ninth of their produce, according to the well-field system.  In the capital, tax people one tenth of their income.  (5.3)

    Notice that city dwellers, which would include businessmen and other professionals, must also pay an income tax.  It is a flat tax.  Although the overall system is mildly regressive (10% tax rate for "rich" city dwellers, and an 11% rate for poorer farmers), there is a minimum welfare that he would guarantee to all people - access to land and livelihood.

       (Notice, too, in the same passage 5.3 Mencius seems to support the infamous PRC hukou system when he says: "People should never leave their village - not when they move their houses and not when they die.")

     He also warns about not taxing enough, something that uncivilized governments do.  Indeed, "barbarians" tax at very low rates precisely because they do not have the finer institutions and practices of higher civilization to maintain   Here's how  Mencius replies when asked if a tax rate of one part in twenty (5%) is sufficient as it is for the "Northern barbarians":

    Northern barbarians don't grow the five grains, only millet.  They have no city walls or buildings, no ancestral temples, no sacrificial rituals.  The have no august lords, no diplomatic hospitality or gifts.  And they don't have the hundred government offices and officials.  That why one part in twenty is enough tax for them.  but here in the Middle Kingdom(s), how can we do without noble-minded leaders and the bond of human community? (12.10)

     Makes me think of Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous line: "taxes are what we pay for living in a civilized society."

Martin Luther King

     Forty years ago today Martin Luther King was shot dead.  I remember it.  I was eleven years old and King's assassination was a bracing moment in my political socialization.

     My parents were both born and raised in Washington DC, which was, in their time, a segregated city (as it remains by and large).  They both came from middle class families but also had black maids, common then to the white professional classes.  They were not racists but were used to a certain racial inequality.  I remember as a young child traveling to see relatives in Virginia and seeing signs that read "Whites only."  They made my sister cry.

     I was raised in a suburb of New York City and as I came into political awareness the civil rights movement had already scored significant victories.  My father, who would later teach rhetoric at Fairfield University, was drawn to King's brilliant oratory.  The 1963 "I have a dream" speech was revered in our household.    

    So when the news came over the radio and television that he had been shot, it was like a physical punch in the stomach.  I could not understand it.  How could such a man, such a brave and charismatic figure, be gunned down?  As the cities went up in flames (my aunt remained in DC and gave us reports of the rioting and fires as they unfolded), I  hung my head in shame for the failure of my country.

     That was King's brilliance.  When he invoked the words from the Declaration of Independence - "all men are created equal" - he was pointing out the failure of the United States, its horrible historical failure, but also guiding us toward redemption.  There was a way to be good again.  Equality is difficult to practice and realize; prejudices can be slow to fade.  But that idea of a common humanity that all of us share, not only black and white in America but all races and ethnicities everywhere, is a powerful inspiration.  All people are created equal: an idea that Mencius also articulated:

A heart of compassion is the seed of Humanity.  A heart of conscience is the seed of Duty.  A heart of courtesy is the seed of Ritual.  And a heart of right and wrong is the seed of wisdom.

These four seeds are as much a part of us as our four limbs.  To possess them and yet deny their potential - that is to wound yourself... We all possess these four seeds, and if we all understand how to nurture them, it will be like fire blazing forth or springs flooding free...  (3.6)

     That image of our common humanity, our shared innate goodness, coming forth as "springs flooding free" makes me thing of King invoking Amos: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream."   Ultimately, it's all about equality.

      King has continued to inspire us.  Maureen and I, when our son was born, named him for King: Aidan Martin Crane.  And Aidan taught me even more about the common humanity emphasized by King and Mencius.

Mencius at the Federal Reserve

     It may be shrouded in financial technicalities, but the action of the Federal Reserve Bank and the Treasury Department to limit the effects of the sub-prime mortgage crisis has a Mencian ring to it.   Here is Timothy F. Geithner, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York today at a Congressional hearing:

“We judged that a sudden, disorderly failure of Bear [Stearns, investment bank] would have brought with it unpredictable but severe consequences for the functioning of the broader financial system and the broader economy,” Mr. Geithner said in his remarks, adding that stock markets and home prices could have fallen significantly in the event of a collapse.

“Absent a forceful policy response, the consequences would be lower incomes for working families, higher borrowing costs for housing, education, and the expenses of everyday life, lower value of retirement savings, and rising unemployment,” Mr. Geithner said.

Mr. Geithner added that a lack of response from the Fed “would in effect have penalized” other businesses and banks that had “behaved more prudently” than Bear Stearns.

 Notice how he links government intervention in financial markets to the material well being of the people at large.   Mencius says that this is precisely what a noble-minded leader should do:

If you want to put my words into practice, why not return to fundamentals?  When every five-acre farm has mulberry trees around the farmhouse, people wear silk at fifty. And when proper seasons of chickens and pigs and dogs are not neglected, people eat meat at seventy.  When hundred-acre farms never violate their proper seasons, even large families don't go hungry.  Pay close attention to the teaching in village schools, and extend it to the child's family responsibilities - then, when their silver hair glistens people won't be out on roads and paths hauling heavy loads. Our black-haired people free of hunger and cold, wearing silk and eating meat in old age - there have never been such times without a true emperor. (17)

     Mulberry trees and chickens and dogs are not high stakes buy outs worth tens of billions of dollars, but you get the idea.  Geithner mentions his concern with education and the elderly, impeccably Mencian values.   Maybe if the financial system really is propped up by all of this (and I hope it is!), our "silver hair" folks will be living a good life.

     Additionally, the "moral hazard" problem came up:

Lawmakers spent much of the morning grilling regulators on the details of the bailout and especially the possibility of “moral hazard,” where risk-takers are emboldened by escaping punishment for their bad bets.

 I think a Mencian take on this would be: if there is a tension between the bad decisions of risk-takers and the material well being of the multitude, better to side with the potentially virtuous many over and against the imprudent few.  This is not so much a "greatest good for the greatest number" argument, as it is an emphasis on maintaining the material security necessary for average people to conscientiously carry out their family and social duties.  If there are some really bad actors who have brought on the systemic problem, specific sanction might be brought against them later, after the people's livelihood (that's for you Sun Yat-sen) has been protected.

       The only moral hazard a Mencian would see in this would be the potential jeopardy of the general welfare.

"Bush's War"

    Last night I watched a good portion of the Frontline program, "Bush's War."  It was a frustrating reminder of the many, many inhumane decisions that led to the US war in Iraq.  Then, this morning, I saw this piece in the NYT, describing how Bush is essentially going to maintain force levels (so much for the "temporary surge") through the end of his term, continue his deeply irresponsible denial, and just hand off the war and all of its problems to the next president. 

       Two things stand out in all of these shameful stories: the stunning arrogance and ignorance of the top decision-makers, Bush, Cheney Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc; but also the cowardice of other important leaders, people who could have chosen to not participate in the process of war-making by resigning their high level positions and becoming public critics.  Why did Colin Powell not walk away?  He knew what was likely to happen.  Why didn't more military men and intelligence agents resign and say what they could publicly?  Were they too worried about pensions and professional standing?  Were they elevating loyalty to a single leader above loyalty to broader national principles?   Given what has happened in Iraq, they should all be working against McCain now, who seems oblivious to the disaster and is pressing for further military action against Iran.  But they're not, not most of them at least.  They are just not noble-minded in a Confucian sense:

It's clear from this that Confucius deplored anyone enriching a ruler who didn't practice Humane government.  And he deplored even more those who waged war for such a ruler.  In wars for land, the dead crowd the countryside.  In wars for cities, the dead fill the cities.  This is called helping the land feed on human flesh.  Death is not punishment enough for such acts.

Hence, those who excel at war should receive the highest punishment.  Next come those who form the august lords into alliances.  And finally those who open up wild land hoping to increase profits.  Mencius, 7(4A).14

     I'm not advocating capital punishment for Bush and Cheney, nor do I think Mencius is, either.  The point is to remind us just how horrible their actions have been.  Impeachment for both would suffice, and application of relevant war crimes statues.

      Indeed, watching the long, sad documentary (part two is tonight) and remembering Cheney's central role in the whole mess, these words came to mind:

There's only one way to know if people are good or evil: look at the choices they make.  Mencius, 11(6A).14

      Cheney has shown us, by his choices, that he is not a good man.

      I can see what is going to happen: Bush will "stay the course" in Iraq, hand off the mess to president Obama, and then, when Obama has to make the necessary choices for withdrawal (which could usher in a period of increased violence) the right-wing will blame Obama for "losing Iraq."  but the reality is that Iraq is already lost.  Violence will continue whether we are there or not.  It may be refracted by our presence, but the underlying political conditions that produce it are not receding.  It is a no-win situation, so we must find a way forward to the least bad loss. 

      But one thing must be remembered in all of this: Bush lost the war.

Taiwan's Presidential Election

    No big surprises here.  Ma Ying-jeou, the KMT candidate, appears to have won about 58% of the vote.  This is pretty much what was expected following January's legislative elections. 

    We should be careful, however, in reading too much into this outcome.  While it is true that the KMT will almost certainly seek accommodations with the PRC government on a number of specific functional issues (airline travel, public health issues, investment, etc.), this will not amount to anything like "unification."  Remember, Ma Ying-jeou pledged during the campaign not to hold negotiations with the PRC on the question of unification during his first term. I suspect he will hold to that pledge, especially in light of the current turbulence in Tibet.   There will be an improvement in the atmospherics, and that is important, but Ma and the KMT will maintain Taiwan's de facto independence.

     The CCP will be happy for now.  They can at least be assured that no Chen Shui-bian style "provocations" will emanate from Taibei for the near term.  They need all the calm they can get, given their problems with Tibet now.  Once the Olympics are past, however, I would bet that Beijing will start pressing Ma for some sort of demonstration that "unification" is in process.  And I would further bet that nothing Ma does will be sufficient for Beijing on that score.  So, by the end of 2008, or early in 2009, we will likely see accusations that Ma is a "splittist" of the Dalai Lama type.  In other words, the honeymoon will likely be rather short. 

      I hope I'm wrong, but that will require a certain acceptance on the part of Beijing with a status quo that is not really moving, politically, toward "unification."  Some in Beijing may be will to be patient in the belief that economic interdependence will gradually evolve into closer political ties, in an EU sort of way, but nationalists will call for faster, direct action, and that, I suspect, will dictate policy after the Olympics.

     In a broader sense, this election illustrates the maturity of Taiwanese democracy.  This will be the second time in a decade (the first being in 2000) when executive political authority has been peaceably passed from one party to another by means of free and fair contested elections based on universal suffrage.   It also reminds us that democracy is very much possible in "Chinese" cultural contexts (even though DPP supporters in Taiwan would contest the usage of the term "Chinese" here).  And that brings me back to Mencius, who puts forth a notion of popular consent, or something that comes pretty close to a notion of popular consent. 

     In chapter 9 (or 5A, depending upon your translation), he tells us that "all beneath Heaven" (i.e. political legitimacy) cannot be passed from one ruler to another: "The Son of Heaven cannot give all beneath Heaven to another."  Only "heaven" and "the people" have the authority to bestow legitimacy.  He illustrates the point with the passage of the Mandate from Yao to Shun.   Yao found Shun, but he did not personally bestow legitimacy:

When he [Yao] put Shun in charge of the sacrifices, the spirits welcomed  them.  This is how Heaven accepted him.  When put Shun in charge of the nation's affairs, they were well ordered and the people were at peace.  This is how the people accepted him.  So Heaven gave it [all beneath heaven] to him and the people give it to him.  This is what I mean when I say the Son of Heaven cannot give all beneath Heaven to another.

 Of course, Heaven, insofar as it denotes something like "fate" or "destiny," is a rather vague standard here.  How can we know Heaven's tendency?  Heaven, in and of itself, does not speak.  Mencius has an answer, which he finds in a saying from Emperor Wu:

Heaven sees through the eyes of the people.  Heaven hears through the ears of the people.

    This suggests that popular opinion is a reliable indicator of Heaven's tendencies.  And that is what just happened in Taiwan: people expressed their political opinions through free and fair elections.  The ruling party was found wanting, and the opposition party was granted legitimate authority.  Peacefully.  Very much in keeping with Mencius.

Breaking News: Mencius Right, Legalists Wrong

     Nothing like some current psycho-social scientific research (hat tip: Zhongnanhai) to verify claims that have been around for a couple of thousand years:

Common game theory has held that punishment makes two equals cooperate. But when people compete in repeated games, punishment fails to deliver, said study author Martin Nowak. He is director of the evolutionary dynamics lab at Harvard where the study was conducted.

"On the individual level, we find that those who use punishments are the losers," Nowak said his experiments found.

Those who escalate the conflict very often wound up doomed.

"It's a very positive message," said study co-author David Rand, a Harvard biology graduate student researcher. "In general, the thing that is most, sort of, rational and best for your own self-interest is to be nice."

     Sounds Mencian to me.  We all have a heart that cannot bear to see others suffer and when we act with compassion and humanity toward others we not only fulfill out internal appetite to enact our duties but we also contribute to the creation of a better society.  It is not only right to be humane, but it is also efficacious.  The contrary, dreary Legalist emphasis on "clear laws and strict punishments" fails.

     There is, however, one caveat:

The study looked at games between equals. Punishment does seem to have a place in games when one player is dominant and needs to enforce submission, Nowak said.

    To get a better sense of this, let's go to the recent Nature article:

Dreber et al. conclude that costly punishment is a 'maladaptive' behaviour in social-dilemma situations — one that is fundamentally counterproductive, because it pays off neither for the punisher nor for the group. Thus, although it frequently induces cooperation, it can't have evolved for inducing cooperation. Not even the cooperation-enhancing effect appears consistently in social-dilemma games. In some societies, not only free-loaders but also high contributors are punished, which dampens and sometimes even removes the cooperation-enhancing effect of punishment⁸.

Dreber et al. argue that punishment has evolved for another purpose, such as coercing individuals into submission, or establishing dominance hierarchies. But the fact remains that, given the choice, players of social-dilemma games have been shown to prefer an environment where punishment is possible. That preference pays off when participants, punishers as well as non-punishers, enter this environment after the initial period of high punishment is over and cooperation dominates⁴.

   This suggests that, in the early phases of social interactions, where each side is looking to dominate or gain significant advantage over the other, punishment may play a role.  But punishment does not, over time, contribute to social cooperation. The persistence of punishment thus may signal an obsession with "maladaptive" domination and an ignorance of how to build social cooperation.  As the Nature article puts it:

Thus, it would seem, winners don't punish; and punishers perish.

 Which has a certain Confucian-aphoristic resonance...