The Philosopher-King

It was stated in the discussion earlier that the philosopher-king is a ruler who does not intervene with the matters of his people. This is done if he is away from them or he distance himself from them. In this way, his personal life is also not interfered by the people. He makes himself unknown to the people. Now, earlier, I had a question towards the need of a ruler. If a ruler is to not interfere with the matters of his people, then what is his role then as a king or  ruler. Why is he called a king then?

It was also discussed earlier that Lao Tzu was pushing for a laissez faire kind of economic and political system. In the economic point of view, laissez faire is giving everyone the free chance to establish there own businesses without the too much restriction. In the political sense, it is letting the people do whatever they do. It is giving them freedom to do what they want to do without too much involvement of the government.

Now, what does this have to do with my question? The king is still needed in the society. His role is to secure the people and arrange them. He acts as the arranger, the organizer of the society. He makes sure that the society still maintains the peace and order even though the government does not interfere with them. He keeps himself away from the public as an example of what he also wants the people to do. Since he doesn't interfere with their own businesses, the people would also not interfere with him.

Therefore, the king still has the role in the society even though he seems to have to be an invincible ruler, one who has to keep his self away from the public. Being a non-interfering ruler, he does not push the people to do what he wants them to do. He does not force them, thus does not violate the Tao.