When did you realize Legalism is the classical-Chinese-philosophy master race?

And ripped from a japanese website and with a very heavy flavouring of japanese threads.

And what is Legalism?

Harsh and brutal punishments to foster fear for arbitrary rules that change on the whim of whoever is in charge at the time? Theres a reason Confucianism and Daoism are still very popular and relevant philosophies and legalism is dead.

>DAOISM: dude weed lmao
Kek. It pretty much just is Heraclitus on weed desu.

This tbqh

I wouldn't necessarily say Legalism is dead. Its legacy lives on within various schools of Confucian thought and mainstream government behavior. But yes, it has long been dead as a unique tradition.

It really was a fascinating time in Chinese history. This debate not was only about economics but also a microcosm of the general situation of the Han Dynasty. Some aspects of the debate are very much relevant today.
For example, in foreign policy, the massive campaigns against the Xiongnu, who posed a major geopolitical threat to the west and north, required massive amounts of funding. The monopolies on salt and iron were thus imposed to generate the needed revenues. However, the reformers responded with questions such as: To what extent is a strong, proactive foreign policy justified? When should there be an escalation of warfare?
The Salt-Iron debate also brought up economics. The reformists protested that the trade brought in by securing the Silk Road mainly brought in access to frivolous luxury products (exotic fruits, jewelry, etc) only affordable by the rich. In contrast, they pointed out that iron and salt were necessities of life for all levels of society. By ending the expensive campaigns in the Western regions, they believed that the livelihoods of commoners would be benefited in exchange for ending what they saw as "benefits" which was highly wasteful. They also argued that the general well-being of the population would be better off if private enterprise in salt and iron took the reigns, selling cheaper and higher-quality items to the people. To further their arguments, the reformists further stated that the existing level of imposition of government control and regulations was too intrusive into the daily tranquility of people's livelihoods.

Finally, it also touched upon political trends. Another reason why the monopolies were imposed was that overly landowners were constantly a thorn to state centralization throughout ancient Chinese history. During the Han, some merchants of the highly profitable salt and iron were becoming insanely powerful by making more money than the annual revenue of the state. However, in times of need, the government also found these same merchants to be highly jealous and protective of their immense profits. Moreover, using their profits, these rich landowners invested in buying vast tracts of land intended for independent farmers. These landowners thus no longer depended on the central government to sustain themselves and continually sheared off peasant tax revenues from the government, a crucial threat if allowed to compound. The Han, as an immense empire without modern means of communication, needed to keep local magnates under control at all costs. The avarice of such landlords led to resentment over the power of landlords and merchants, fueling the popularity of Wang Mang's usurpation. Even though the monopolies were defeated in the latter stages of Han rule, the view of the modernists should not be discarded as the victory of the reformists accelerated the depletion of central control and helped the rise of warlords who only nominally recognized the legitimacy Han court.

>I find it very fascinating that such a conversation over economics was occurring during classic antiquity what do you guys think of it?

The whole of human existence has been one of struggle between a central authority, and those who seek to be independent. For the good the tribe, the central authority must exert control and focus the wills of individuals to so that the tribe has a strength greater than the sum of its parts. However, not everyone wants to do what the central authority wants to do, nor are the projects which the central authority seeks to complete even worth the effort and time.

>They also argued that the general well-being of the population would be better off if private enterprise in salt and iron took the reigns, selling cheaper and higher-quality items to the people.

>Chinese Confucians saw the benefits of Free Market Capitalism, 10000 years ago, yet modern day statists are incapable of seeing its benefits.

打破旧世界!
没有共产党就没有新中国!

However, Ming China was hands off to the extent that they refused famine relief, believing the famines would sort themselves out. This contributed to the peasant rebellions that eventually overthrew the Ming.

Can somebody read this thingy?

I think it should be "...nor are the projects which the central authority seeks to complete NECESSARILY worth the effort and time".

As I've said above, letting the market run freely does have some disadvantages in areas besides economics. Letting business have too much influence over the country is not desirable in my perspective.

Sod off and worship your German autist. Communist historiography and economics are cancer-tier.

The closest character I can relate it to is "淸" which is a variant of "清" meaning pure or clear. However, the radical on the left looks like "丁" and some strokes are employed in an artistic style I'm not familiar with. Are you sure this is Chinese?

No im not sure... probably took the pic upside down :P
Cant confirm its origin.
All we know is that it was acquired by the family circa 1910~1920.

Thats the only thing writen on the vase.
Do you know where else can i ask around?

If it's upside down, it definitely is not Chinese. You can ask a Sinologist or a Chinese friend for more advice.