Dao De Jing – Chapter 17

Chapter 17 of the Dao De Jing establishes a hierarchy of governance where political excellence is measured by its operational invisibility‌.

In the highest antiquity, (the people) did not know that there were (their rulers). In the next age they loved them and praised them. In the next they feared them; in the next they despised them. Thus it was that when faith (in the Dao) was deficient (in the rulers) a want of faith in them ensued (in the people). How irresolute did those (earliest rulers) appear, showing (by their reticence) the importance which they set upon their words! Their work was done and their undertakings were successful, while the people all said, ‘We are as we are, of ourselves!’

Laozi’s political utopia, articulated in the Dao De Jing, proposes a governance model where:

• The ideal ruler embodies primordial integrity, acting with serene discretion‌;
• Government exists as an instrument serving the people, not as a coercive entity‌;
• Political power flows in natural harmony without imposing on civil life‌;
• People and administration coexist in mutual detachment, each following their essential rhythm‌.

In this chapter, Laozi contrasts his political ideal with the “rule by virtue” advocated by Confucians and the “rule by law” promoted by Legalists, considering both inferior‌.

The “rule by virtue” generates public trust and even praise for the ruler—seemingly positive—yet Laozi deems it lesser than “non-interventionist governance”‌. Conversely, the “rule by law,” relying on harsh punishments and oppressive policies, reflects the ruler’s lack of integrity, provoking only fear and avoidance of authority‌.

Laozi vehemently rejects this Legalist approach, interpreting even “rule by virtue” as symptomatic of systemic disturbance‌. For him, optimal governance lies in rulers who “value silence,” avoiding unnecessary decrees. In such a scenario, the people would coexist harmoniously with political power to the point of remaining unaware of their leaders’ identities‌. Laozi acknowledges, however, that this idealized vision—a philosophical “utopia”—did not exist in his era, serving rather as a projection of his thought‌.