Wujunlun 無君論

Wujunlun 無君論 "On anarchy" is an essay written during the early Eastern Jin period 東晉 (317-420) by Bao Jingyan 鮑敬言 (dates unknown). It is recorded, presumably in excerpts, in the chapter Jie Bao 詰鮑 "Questioning Bao [Jingyan]" in the book Baopuzi 抱樸子, as a kind of dialogue between Baopuzi and "Master Bao" (Baozi 鮑子).

The dialogue begins with the statement that Bao Jingyan enjoyed the Daoist works of Laozi 老子 (Daodejing 道德經) and Zhuangzi 莊子, which believed that in ancient times there were no rulers, and that this had been better than the present age. Bao Jingyan upheld the Daoist view of "the Way of Heaven being natural" (tian dao zi ran 天道自然), which stood in sharp opposition to the Confucian tradition of the "divine right of kings" (jun quan shen shou 君權神授).

Bao expressed his own understanding of the origin of the "way of ruler and minister" (jun chen zhi dao 君臣之道), and, by contrasting the ancient times with the present age, conveyed his yearning for and praise of a Great Unity (datong 大同) world without rulers or ministers. He denied that the establishment of rulers and ministers was the mandate of August Heaven (Huang Tian 皇天), questioning whether Heaven had instated kings and ministers to rule over the people, and whether the people had desired this (qi qi Huang Tian chunchun yan, yi jiang yu zhi zhe 豈其皇天諄諄言，亦將欲之者). Bao believed that the concept of the "way of ruler and minister" arose from strong people oppressing the weak and the clever deceiving the foolish.

In terms of social ideals, the treatise advances the view that in ancient days, everyone laboured and people supported themselves, an assumption which is close to that of the agriculturalists (nongjia 農家). In those days, there was no struggle for power or calamity of war. Weapons were not used, and city walls were not built. There was likewise no hoarding of wealth, and no punishments. Rulers, driven by insatiable greed and extreme extravagance, brought with them plunder, warfare, banditry, punishments, and more.

The Wujunlun exposes the exploitation by the ruling elite and attacks the traditional doctrine of the divine right of kings, primarily through its depiction of an ideal society free from exploitation and oppression. It had a considerable influence on later generations. However, in its view of history, it displays a distinctly ahistorical character - which is also the opposite of history-centred Confucianism.