The Dharma of Non-Violence: Why Buddhists Should Oppose Coercive Political Systems

By Matthew Hayward

Buddhists are committed to the principles of non-violence, compassion, and non-harm. Every living being has inherent worth and dignity, and our actions should be guided by a deep sense of empathy and responsibility for the well-being of all.

For these reasons, it is antithetical to support any political organization or philosophy that relies on force or the threat of force to achieve its goals. This includes, but is not limited to, governments and political systems founded on the principles of coercion, domination, or control.

The use of force is inherently violent and coercive, running counter to the core principles of Buddhism. Buddhism teaches that our actions should be guided by a deep sense of ethical responsibility and a commitment to non-harm. It encourages us to cultivate compassion, wisdom, and understanding and to seek peaceful solutions to conflicts whenever possible.

Moreover, using force by governments and political organizations often leads to the violation of individual rights and the oppression of marginalized communities. It can also perpetuate cycles of violence and harm rather than promote genuine social justice and well-being.

Buddhists should reject any political system or ideology built on the use or threat of force. Instead, we should work towards building a society founded on voluntary cooperation, empathy, and mutual respect. We must prioritize the well-being of all living beings and seek peaceful solutions to conflicts that honor the dignity and worth of every individual.

A Buddhist cannot, in good conscience, support any political organization or philosophy that relies on force or the threat of force. Instead, we must strive toward building a society founded on the principles of non-violence, compassion, and voluntary cooperation, prioritizing the well-being of all living beings.

Comments

Could Today Be the Cheapest Price for Bitcoin Ever Again? Here’s Why

By: Matthew Hayward Current price Nov 10, 2024 76.72K 80.43K Is Now the Time to Buy Bitcoin? Bitcoin has come a long way since its early days as a niche digital asset. Today, as we enter another phase in its established four-year cycle , Bitcoin may be at a historic high, but it could soon become the new baseline price. This cycle, which has repeatedly shown Bitcoin’s resilience and long-term growth potential, suggests that the current price might be the lowest we’ll see again. While recent political shifts, including Donald Trump’s landslide election victory, have added new momentum and support for Bitcoin, the timing within the cycle itself makes this an ideal moment to consider buying. A Political Shift: From Anti-Crypto to Pro-Crypto For years, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have faced an uphill battle against a U.S. government determined to restrict and control their growth. This opposition was largely led by Gary Gensler, who waged an outright war against crypto from hi...

The National Guard Was Never Meant to Be a Federal Tool

By Matthew Hayward 7/13/2025 Let me say this clearly: the National Guard was created to defend the states, not to enforce the will of the federal government. It was meant to serve as a local militia—an armed extension of the people under the control of the state. The highest authority a Guard member was ever supposed to answer to is their elected governor, not a bureaucrat in Washington, not a federal agency, and certainly not a sitting president weaponizing military force on domestic soil. Yes, I know the laws have changed. I know the Montgomery Amendment, the National Defense Act, and the Supreme Court's decision in Perpich v. DoD rewrote the rules. But legal doesn’t mean constitutional. Gradualism doesn’t legitimize usurpation. You don’t get to trample foundational principles and call it progress. What’s happening now—federalizing state forces to deploy them in cities without gubernatorial consent—is blasphemous. It's an insult to the very spirit of the Constitution. The ...

When Government Demands Papers We Refuse

By Matthew Hayward 9/19/2025 The Supreme Court just paused a lower court order that had limited federal immigration stops in Los Angeles. That stay lets federal agents resume roving patrols and interior operations that critics say rely on appearance, language, job, or neighborhood to pick people for questioning. This matters because it normalizes a posture of suspicion. Checkpoints miles inland and roving patrols turn movement inside the country into a condition to be earned rather than a freedom to be enjoyed. The government already claims expanded authority inside the 100-mile border zone. That claim, plus an open green light for stops based on appearance, is a recipe for arbitrary enforcement. Philosophy of resistance John Locke told us that the consent of the governed is the foundation of legitimate power. When rulers invade life, liberty, or property, or when they become arbitrary disposers of people’s lives and fortunes, the social compact is dissolve...

Search This Blog