Why didn't legalism ever go mainstream?

Because worshipping the rule of law is retarded

>>2910315
Because it is utterly inhuman, fit only for a state in an existential crisis.

>>2910315
It was; Chinese government was Legalism softened by Confucianism.

alienated all social classes save the ruler. It's the eastern equivalent of absolutism save more feudal and brutal

Because they were crazy. Literally everything was based on two things, War and farming. Fuck merchants. What they would do is, every soldier got land, but the amount of lands he got was dependant upon how many enemy heads he brought back. Also Legalism lost influence due to the fall of the Qin dynasty, which was legalist. This kind of ruined it's reputation, however I think the Han dynasty also used it to a lesser degree. After the fall of the Han Dynasty though, there was like 100 years of civil war and anarchy which got rid of the precedent of the previous dynasty using Legalism.

>>2910315
It did.

In fact the final version of Confucianism, the one that the Chinese Empire eventually had, pretty much had elements of many philosophies of the 100 Schools of Thought era incorporated to it.

Among which was Legalism and its healthy respect for the law.

It mostly did in China. It would never gain traction in the west however since our own way of thinking contradicts the fundamentals of legalism

>>2910342
Inflating legalism to the extremes is a fallacy.

Legalism is basically rule of the law. Respect for the law, etc. Its the basic principle of most developed countries today.

File: 14392730932709.jpg (34KB, 640x431px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 640x431px

>>2911201
Are that guy who accused Confucians of being "feudalcucks" a few days ago (if not, carry on)? Legalism not only exhorts obedience to the law but also is a philosophical system that has its own views about human nature, ideal society, just war, etc. Legalist rule of law vs Western rule of law work along fundamentally different axioms.

>>2911234
*Are you that guy