Reaction to Lao-Tzu & Machiavelli

Two distinct styles that reflect unique time periods almost perfectly, Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli wrote beautifully on the roles and obligations of those in political and socioeconomic power. Lao-Tzu chose to write in a style that alone accomplishes the same purpose as what his focus was. By writing stanza by stanza, Lao-Tzu forces his readers to approach his writings with patience and clarity, otherwise it would be easy to miss the messages his words contain. Once he has put his reader in a calm state of mind, Lao-Tzu approaches the subject of subjugation; or more clearly how one with the power to subjugate should handle themselves. Lao-Tzu uses his model of “the Master” to be an example of a proper, just, and benevolent ruler. He encourages all those in power to act almost in the shadows and without bringing the spotlight on themselves. Early in his writing, he states “The Master doesn’t talk, he acts. When his work is done, the people say ‘Amazing: we did it, all by ourselves’” (Lao-Tzu, 25). This promotes the laissez-faire concepts of government policies where the government doesn’t restrict the populace; however it also states that the ruling powers must work quietly to benefit the society. On the contrary, Machiavelli’s writings not only imply governmental involvement, but also promote it to the point where he believes a prince must constantly remain vigilant and hard working so as to ensure cooperation within his nation. Machiavelli believes that an individual of influence must portray their influence in the daily activities of their realm. This is a stark contrast to Lao-Tzu in that Machiavelli directly challenges Lao-Tzu’s beliefs and statements. In response, which course of action, or inaction in Lao-Tzu’s terms, is more effective? How can near apathy of a ruler lead his subjects to believe everything will work itself out? Lao-Tzu even mentions in his writings that his critics believe his teachings to be impractical, which I cannot say I disagree with. Machiavelli seems to be the more practical writer, affirming that those in charge have an obligation to be constantly vigilant, or else their empires will fall. Apathy is the greatest danger that a government can face, whether imperial or republic, and it is up to our leaders to ensure that it does not exist, even in the lowest levels of office. 

Reaction to Globalization: The Super Story

Globalization is a human process that has a plethora of advantages, including, yet certainly not limited to, sharing of ideals, cooperation of governmental systems, and a sense of interdependence between all those nations involved. However, along with these undeniable advantages, globalization can bring with it certain detriments to global societies that raise caution among scholars, researchers, and the general populace alike. Friedman does very well in explaining how globalization works in modern society, albeit from a Western-biased vantage point, yet his implications bring to light the true nature of globalization. Friedman blatantly states “…the United States is now the sole and dominant superpower and all other nations are subordinate to it to one degree or another” (Friedman 473), which begs the question: is this really where we want, or more importantly, need the world to be? This bold statement is neither totally biased nor inaccurate; the United States has incredible pull with regards to the global system and can theoretically run the table however it so wished. Friedman’s entire publication focused on “balance” and the “three balances” that makes up the modern globalized worldview, yet a global system run by one major nation does not seem like one that follows the definition of balanced. Yes, globalization allows certain nations and countries to fail without much consequence to the world focus knowing that the larger, more stable countries and nations will fortify and reestablish the failing or failed ones. This adds, whether we are conscious of this fact or not, additional pressure on those larger nations to maintain stability, or all groups fail. One could view heavily globalized economies as inverted pyramids, in which the many disadvantaged nations rest on the shoulders of the few seemingly well-off countries. This is an extremely dangerous situation, as the smallest stumble from the major players, aka the United States and China, would cause chaos in the rest of the world. Ironically, globalization does not seem to be following the tree-pronged balance that Friedman proposes; instead it seems to be forcing the world to revert back to a divided worldview where it’s the United States versus someone else. Yes, we are all connected globally; however this could ultimately spell doom for several economic and government systems.