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.