How Lao Tzu's Ideas Relate to American History, Comments on Machiavelli

Lao Tzu’s Tao-te Ching is an extremely idealistic piece that espouses the overall idea that humans are inherently good beings. In today’s wording, “Go with the flow” is the central part of Lao Tzu’s philosophy, where Tao is “the flow.” He recommends to “Act for the people’s benefit. Trust them; leave them alone” (33). Basically, the government should leave people to their own devices for humans are naturally inclined to follow the Tao, which will enable a neutral state to prevail. The idea of a non-intrusive government is seen in American history, specifically in the times of the American Revolution. Before the 1770s, the thirteen original colonies experienced a period of salutary neglect, whereby the British government was lenient about enforcing trade relations laws and essentially left the colonists to govern themselves. Thus, the colonies essentially became sovereign. Prime Minister Robert Wapole had stated, “If no restrictions were placed on the colonies, they would flourish”, which is basically Lao Tzu’s idea of non-intervention. 

However, the period of the ‘salutary neglect’ policy ended in the 1770s, when Britain began to enforce the Navigation Acts and established the Stamp and Sugar Acts, causing tension in the colonies to rise since the colonists were accustomed to the idea of self-control. The period of isolation from their mother country caused the colonies to subconsciously develop a collective identity that they were separate from England, which was another factor that enabled the revolution to transpire. This example in American history clearly shows that Lao Tzu’s approach to governance is important to follow since “Governing a large country is like frying a small fish; you spoil it with too much poking” (30). 

Machiavelli looks at governance completely differently, as he believes that humans must be under a sovereign leader’s control in order to have security in the country. This makes sense because many people need some kind of motivation – like a boss looking over their shoulder, a deadline, or something of the sort – in order to perform work up to par. In a work setting, for example, control is needed in order to keep up with deadlines and to keep moving the company forward. If no authority figures exist in such a setting, then basic standards would be upheld less because of the famous excuse “Sorry for the mistake; I’m only human.” 

It is interesting to note the balance of how a leader should rule in Machiavelli's eyes: the authority should be feared but not hated. Usually when a person is scared of something, he hates it also; for example, when someone has an irrational fear of spiders, he also despises them. I think that Machiavelli is talking more about respect rather than raw fear. When a leader gains respect, then the people under his control are less likely to rebel since they have faith in him.

Comments on "Globalization: the Super-Story"

Perhaps I misunderstand the text, but I believe Friedman contradicts himself, specifically when he declares that the US is the ultimate super power in the current time period of globalization. As part of his contrast between the cold war and the globalization systems, he states that even though the world was divided in the cold war era, the leaders of the US and the Soviet Union remained in charge while in the globalization system, the world is interconnected by the Internet and “nobody is quite in charge” (473). When Friedman delves more in the globalization system, he proceeds to directly state that “the US is now the sole and dominant superpower and all nations are subordinate to it” (473). This is a clear contradiction since he first states no real authority exists in the current times and then declares that America is the dominant global power.

 I also don’t understand what Friedman means by basically saying that the US is the ultimate superpower above all others in the world. If this were indeed the case, America would be in a much more progressive and positive state. I understand that he wrote this document shortly after the tragic 9/11, when the US was in much better economic standing than it is currently in 2013; however, even then the US was falling behind in world-wide educational rankings. A superior power should have not been slipping in this area, since educational quality usually predicts the kinds of leaders the country will have in the future. Also, the US was outsourcing industry then and is still doing so now, which also contradicts the idea of it being the most powerful global nation, since it should pursue innovative industry within the country instead of relying on other countries. By no means is the US NOT a dominant global entity; however, until improvements are made, it is not THE central power. Additionally, a so-called top power does not necessarily exist; it merely depends on perspective.