Does a Peasant Uprising That Seizes Imperial Power Count as Theft?

This first depends on whom imperial power actually belongs to—who is the owner and master of imperial power. If it belongs to the emperor and his family, then a peasant uprising would be stealing from the current emperor. But then, who can be emperor forever? After an emperor dies, if he has no son to succeed him, someone else of the imperial clan becomes emperor. This shows that the position of emperor is not fixed and unchanging. Since it can change, anyone among the people with great merit and capability can likewise become emperor. Therefore, if peasants rise up and successfully become emperor, it does not count as stealing.

Moreover, if this power is something everyone has a share in, then peasants rising up to become emperor also does not count as stealing. Public power is not private property; to gradually occupy it and make it one's own is wrong. To seize imperial power with the selfish intent of wanting to be number one under heaven is stealing; to act wholeheartedly for the sake of all under heaven is not stealing. Historically, many peasant uprisings were products of officials oppressing the people into rebellion. If the class holding power becomes corrupt and benighted, implements tyrannical rule, and disregards whether the people live or die, then when the people rise up, strip away its public power, and rescue themselves, this does not constitute stealing. However, if the insurgents, once they gain power, likewise abuse public power for private ends, and become even more corrupt and tyrannical than their predecessors, then the insurgents too have committed acts of stealing.

One must look at what the sentient beings of that time all thought—who benefited and who was harmed. One cannot explain cause and effect using worldly morality. Judging from the characteristics of feudal dynastic rule, dynastic changes throughout history benefited the ruling class the most; ordinary common people were never the greatest beneficiaries. If someone occupies the imperial throne and does real, practical things that benefit the people, it probably still does not count as stealing—it depends on the intention and on the conduct. Then, when an emperor takes imperial power as his private possession and passes it down hereditarily, is that not stealing? Is the emperor's imperial power not itself stolen?