Weak States, Not Limited States: Early Ming Governance and the Illusion of Proto-Liberalism

week states, not limited states, early Ming governance, and the illusion of proto-liberalism

by Joseph Solis Mullin. Comparative political theorists and historians occasionally

describe the early Ming dynasty, 1368 to 1644, as one of the least intrusive periods of governance

in Chinese history since the Han. Tax burdens were relatively light, bureaucratic penetration

into village life was shallow, and much social regulation was left to families and local elites.

These features have led some observers to characterize early Ming rule as restrained,

or even proto-liberal, especially when contrasted with the later fiscal and administrative

expansion of the Ming state. This interpretation, however, confuses state weakness with ideological

restraint. A closer examination of early Ming governance reveals not a principled commitment

limited rule, but the temporary incapacity of a post-collapse regime whose course of authority

remained absolute in theory, even when constrained in practice. Far from undermining a Rothbardian

theory of state growth, the early Ming case confirms it. States govern lightly when they must,

not when they believe they should. To show this, let us first look at the empirical observations

underlying the early Ming restraint thesis, which are largely correct. In the late 14th and early

15th centuries, the Ming state extracted comparatively modest levels of tax revenue,

lack consistent census accuracy, had limited administrative reach below the county level,

relied heavily on village self-regulation and family responsibility. In these respects,

early Ming governance resembles the early Han period, particularly before Emperor Wu's

expansion of fiscal and military capacity, culminating eventually in the vast examination-based

bureaucracy of the Song, 960-1279. As with the Han, later Ming rulers dramatically

increased taxation, monetization, and bureaucratic penetration as population recovered,

and administrative techniques improved. The reason for this is clear enough,

the early Ming state emerged from catastrophe. The collapse of the Yuan dynasty left China

demographically depleted, economically dislocated, and administratively fractured.

Transport infrastructure was damaged, local records were unreliable, and revenue systems were

rudimentary. Under these conditions, the state simply lacked the capacity to govern intrusively,

even if it had wished to do so. This distinction between ideological commitment and practical

capacity is central to a Rothbardian analysis of political power. In power and market,

Murray Rothbard argues that state intervention expands not because rulers become more ambitious

or more corrupt, but because tools of extraction and control improve. When states acquired

better information, communication, and enforcement mechanisms, they invariably used them

as the entire history of the modern nation-state shows. From this perspective,

early Ming restraint is not evidence of limited government, but of limited ability.

The state's claims to authority were expansive, its means were not. The tone of early Ming

governance was shaped decisively by the dynasty's founder, the Hong Wu Emperor.

Hong Wu distrusted scholar officials purged the bureaucracy repeatedly and attempted to rule

through personal authority rather than institutional delegation. He emphasized moral exhortation,

collective responsibility, and hereditary occupational categories.

These measures have sometimes been mistaken for decentralization. In reality,

they reflected personalist autocracy combined with administrative weakness.

Hong Wu did not seek to limit sovereign power. He sought to exercise it directly without

intermediaries. His suspicion of bureaucrats was not a theory of limited government,

but a fear of rivals. Rothbard was acutely sensitive to this distinction.

In anatomy of the state, he emphasizes that hostility toward bureaucracy does not imply hostility

toward power. Autocrats may resist administrative constraints while maintaining absolute authority

over subjects. The early Ming state exemplifies this pattern. Claims of proto-liberalism

also obscure the ideological foundations of Ming governance. While Confucian rhetoric dominated

official discourse, the institutional structure of the state remained thoroughly legalist.

The Ming legal code was harsh, punishments severe, and collective responsibility widely enforced.

Families and villages were held accountable for individual misconduct, reinforcing state

authority rather than limiting it. This fusion of Confucian moral language with legalist

enforcement mechanisms was not unique to the Ming, but it became especially pronounced during

the dynasty. Confucianism functioned as a legitimating ideology sanctifying hierarchy and

obedience while legalist tools supplied the coercive apparatus. Rothbard repeatedly emphasize

the role of ideology in sustaining state power. In the ethics of liberty, he argues that moral

frameworks often serve to internalize obedience, making coercion appear natural or virtuous.

The early Ming state relied on Confucian ethics to justify obedience even when its administrative

reach was shallow. The absence of intrusion, therefore, did not reflect limits on authority.

It reflected limits on enforcement. The frequent comparison between early Ming and early Han

governance is instructive. In both cases, light administration followed periods of collapse.

In both cases, rulers relied heavily on locally leads and customary norms. And in both cases,

increased state capacity eventually produced greater extraction and control. The Han dynasty

illustrates the point clearly. Early Han rulers governed lightly not because they believed in

limited rule, but because the state was recovering from war and consolidation. As fiscal capacity

expanded under Emperor Wu, intervention followed, taxation increased, monopolies were established,

and administrative penetration deepened. The Ming followed the same trajectory. What changed was

not ideology, but capacity. The early Ming case exposes a recurring error in comparative political

theory, equating low extraction with respect for liberty. Rothbard rejected this equation

categorically. Liberty, for Rothbard, requires principle limits on authority, grounded in rights,

not the temporary inability of rulers to act. In for a new liberty, Rothbard stresses that a

state restrained only by circumstance remains a threat. One's conditions change so will behavior.

The Ming states later expansion was not a betrayal of early principles. It was the fulfillment

of long-standing claims to sovereignty once means allowed. For it is a fact that early Ming China had,

no doctrine of individual rights, no constitutional constraints, no concept of law-binding rulers,

no recognized right of resistance. In such a context, describing governance as limited is misleading.

Authority was absolute in theory, even when muted in practice. Some scholars have attributed

early Ming non-intrusiveness to residual Taoist influence. While Taoist cultural norms may have

shaped social expectations, they did not structure governance. Taoism survived alongside the state,

not within it. Administrative institutions, legal codes, and fiscal practices remain legalist

in substance and overwhelmingly confusion in moral rhetoric. This reinforces the central Rothbardian

insight. Ideas hostile to power do not restrain states unless institutionalized. Taoism eroded

legitimacy culturally, but did not impose constraints politically. It should be clear then that the

early Ming dynasty does not represent a proto-liberal order. It represents a weak state recovering

from collapse, exercising authority unevenly while claiming it fully. Its relative non-intrusiveness

was contingent, fragile, and temporary, disappearing as soon as administrative capacity expanded.

From a Rothbardian perspective, the lesson is clear. Liberty that depends on weakness is not

liberty at all. Without rights, constraints, and resistance, quiet governance is merely power

waiting for tools. Early Ming China was not a model of restraint, but a reminder that states grow

not when they discover worse ideas, but when they acquire better means.

For more content like this, visit mises.org