Although modern versions of Confucianism tend to support involuntary hierarchy structures and are generally the very antithesis of anarchist ethics, there maybe a usefulness of mentioning the mandate of heaven to persuade Chinese people of the right to revolt against an unjust system if it can be replaced with a better one although unfortunately they may also use the claim that the right to revolt never existed unless the revolt was successful as an excuse not to try to improve the system or replace the system with a better one or abolish any system altogether. An appeal might also be made that if someone who is a ruler is not a junzi then they have lost the mandate of heaven or they have lost the right to rule by failure to fulfill noblesse oblige or noble obligation. This is also a possible answer or response to the misuse of Romans 13 as an excuse to obey unethical orders. This might not be as radical a position as many anarchists would like a person steeped in modern versions of Confucianist ideology to take as a new point of view but it is a start towards the right direction and maybe also a possible interpretation of Romans 13 that is far more Libertarian or Anarchistic then most so called Christians interpret it but less radical than most anarchists view of government and might possibly be what Romans 13 was originally meant to mean. A sort of position of obey the government so long as they are meeting the noble obligation of justice rather than the more radical position of not acknowledging any authority to the government at all. However this less radical starting point if thought through carefully might only resolve in a more radical point of view in the end if one is careful to avoid contradictions although I am not entirely sure of that.
Copyright Carl Janssen 2018 November 4
The right to rule and the right of rebellion
Chinese historians interpreted a successful revolt as evidence that the Mandate of Heaven had passed. In China, the right of rebellion against an unjust ruler has been a part of political philosophy ever since the Zhou dynasty, and the successful rebellion was interpreted by Chinese historians as evidence that divine approval had passed on to the successive dynasty. The Right of Rebellion is not coded into any official law, rather rebellion is always outlawed and severely punished, but still is a positive right grounded in the Chinese moral system. Often, it is used as a justification for actions to overthrow a previous dynasty after a rebellion has been successful and a new dynastic rule has been established. Since the winner is the one who determines who has obtained the Mandate of Heaven and who has lost it, some Chinese scholars consider it to be a sort of Victor's justice, best characterized in the popular Chinese saying "The winner becomes king, the loser becomes outlaw" (Chinese: ”成者爲王，敗者爲寇“). Due to the above, it is considered that Chinese historical accounts of the fall of a dynasty and the rise of a new one need to be handled with caution. Chinese traditional historical compiling methods produce accounts that tend to fit their account to the theory; emphasize aspects tending to prove that the old dynasty lost the Mandate of Heaven and the new one gained it, and de-emphasize other aspects.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven
https://web.archive.org/web/20181104084451/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven
In political philosophy, the right of revolution (or right of rebellion) is the right or duty of the people of a nation to overthrow a government that acts against their common interests and/or threatens the safety of the people without cause. Stated throughout history in one form or another, the belief in this right has been used to justify various revolutions, including the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the Iranian Revolution.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution
https://web.archive.org/web/20181104084622/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution
Noblesse oblige (/noʊˌblɛs
The Oxford English Dictionary states that the term "suggests noble ancestry constrains to honourable behaviour; privilege entails responsibility."
The Dictionnaire de l'Académie française defines it thus:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noblesse_oblige
https://web.archive.org/web/20181104085406/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noblesse_oblige
As the potential leader of a nation, the son of the ruler is raised to express superior ethical and moral positions while gaining inner peace through virtue. To Confucius, the junzi sustained the functions of government and social stratification through his ethical values. Despite its literal meaning, any righteous man willing to improve himself can become a junzi.
By contrast the xiaoren (小人, xiăorén, "small or petty person") does not grasp the value of virtues and seeks only immediate gain. The petty person is egotistic and does not consider the consequences of his actions. Should the ruler be surrounded by xiaoren as opposed to junzi, his governance and his people will suffer due to their small-mindness. Examples of such xiaoren individuals can range from those who continually indulge in sensual and emotional pleasures to the career politician who is interested merely in power and fame; neither sincerely aims for the long-term benefit of others.
The junzi rules by acting virtuously himself. It is thought that his pure virtue would lead others to follow his example. The ultimate goal is that government behaves much like family. Thus at all levels filial piety promotes harmony and the junzi acts as a beacon for this piety.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junzi
https://web.archive.org/web/20181104085718/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junzi
Socrates & Kongzi (Confucius) in debate
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=terNn-kXApg
https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=terNn-kXApg
