legalism

“The way to administer a state well is for the laws regulating officials to be clear; one does not rely on men to be intelligent and thoughtful. The ruler makes the people single-minded so they will not scheme for selfish profit. Then the strength of the state will be consolidated, and a state whose strength has been consolidated is powerful, but a country that loves talking is dismembered…”

This passage from Agriculture and War covers a key philosophy of legalism. The idea that if people are working toward one common goal they will have no time to think and “scheme” and therefore the “strength of the state will be consolidated.” What this means is that people will be simply too busy to question their government, and therefore the government will become strong. Legalism is, at its roots, a pretty simple and straight forward philosophy; the people are to concern themselves with only one objective- to provide food for their community and support for their government, no questions asked. In this way of thinking the government rains supreme, the people remain fed and protected, and the state can expand. Although this philosophy may be productive it does not take into account the fact that humans have an inane desire to question, to think, and to rebel.
Legalism attempts to control the population with fear of punishment; yet fear propagates fear and eventually people will most likely either become paranoid and dangerous or generally emotionally unstable. The legalist government seems to only consider what is best for the state, and does not concern itself with its people. Harsh punishments and strict ideas may seem to work short term, but eventually people will realize how controlled they are and how unfair the government is and start to think. Through thinking the people will come to resent the government and become the stereotypical angry worker. Many companies and work areas in modern times have come to understand that a happy worker is a good worker, and to that end the companies provide fair wages, benefits, and good work environment. The legalist would have done well, if they had been able to take the advice of modern times. Although you should not always “rely on men to be intelligent and thoughtful” you should rely on the fact that they are human and do have emotions. You should also rely on the fact that these emotions have the ability to spur on a group of citizens; which has a very good chance of leading to the demise of an entire government.
Some of the ideas and concepts of legalism, though flawed, do have some merit in providing protection and stability. If this philosophy had not been a direct opposition to Confucianism it may have been able to be less extreme and have more success. This passage states that a “country that loves talking is dismembered” this is exactly the opposite of what the Confucians believed. Maybe if the legalists had been more open to a moderate change in society instead of such a drastic one, they could have created a government with a good amount of structure and the ability to allow thought and individuality.