Compare And Contrast Machiavelli And American Government

Tao-te Ching (in English pronounced “dow deh jing”) is believed to be written by Lao-tzu (6th century B.C). However, it is not for certain that he wrote the book. Lao-tzu is translated as “Old Master”. He was born in the state of Ch’u in China. It’s been said that he worked in the court of the Chou dynasty. The day that he was leaving the court to start his own life, the keeper of the gate urged him to write his thoughts as a book. Lao-tzu’s work mostly illustrates Taoism –a religion founded by Chang Tao-ling A.D. 150. His main purpose in this piece is practicing peace, simplicity, naturalness, and humility. Lao-tzu believes that people are overloaded with temporal objects in this world. He recommends his readers to let go of everything

Throughout the lifespan of the American government, there have been changes to the different branches. One cannot simply claim that they are exactly as the Founding Fathers had designed them and pictured them; they have become so much more. Among these changes are the adoption of the 17th Amendment, the general surrender of control of power to the executive branch, and the centralization of power to a couple of congressional leaders in recent years. These are some of the most important changes that have altered the Congress and the American government in general.

He discusses that the prince have military knowledge, love and fear, trustworthiness, and good and bad reputations. He deeply believes in the art of war. "...a prince must not have any objective nor any thought, nor take up any art, other than the art of war and its ordering and discipline; because it is the only art that pertains to him who commands. And it is of such virtue that not only does it maintain those who were born princes, but many times makes men rise to that rank from private station; and conversely one sees that when princes have thought more of delicacies than of arms, they have lost their state." He also writes about whether it is better to be loved or feared, stating that it is best to be feared, but not hated. Love can change in an instant, and it is better to always have control, even if the prince must be feared. Patriotism and dedication to the state was also a very important aspect. In conclusion, Machiavelli strived for power and strength by any means possible. Through violence and fear, the end result would be worth it to him.

In the making of the United States, there were many events that are important. This paper intends to highlight a few of those events including; Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the Federalist Papers. Many events in America’s history helped to establish the United States as a free and independent country. The Declaration of Independence in particular explains the rights and freedoms that Americans. Each document is like a stepping stones that leads to the next and building upon the pervious document.

The United States government system is very interesting and complexly designed. The state and federal government is a mirror of each other when it comes to the generics of the executive branch, legislative branch, and judicial branch, however, internally the state government has major differences on how the branches are conducted. Throughout this paper we will discuss the greatest difference between state and federal, which is the state cannot change or remove laws passed by the federal government but they could change how they execute the federal laws to their liking as long as it is constitutional.

The structure of our American Government was founded in the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution was written to be the “supreme law of the land,” and produces a democratic republic, where citizens govern themselves (Our American Government, n.d). The purpose of our government, is to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” (Our American Government, n.d.). For our country to accomplish this purpose our Founding Fathers created three principles, “inherent rights, self-government, and separation of powers” (Our American Government, n.d.). The government was developed to ensure order in society and protect its citizens, but with all systems, there is strengths and weakness, let’s examine those strengths and weakness. Let’s first look at the strength and weakness of the U.S. Constitution.

author of Prince. They are both philosophers but have totally different perspective on how to be a good leader. While both philosopher’s writing is instructive. Lao-tzu’s advice issues from detached view of a universal ruler; Machiavelli’s advice is very personal perhaps demanding. Both philosophers’ idea will not work for today’s world, because that modern world is not as perfect as Lao-tzu described in Tao-te

Socrates, Machiavelli, and Rousseau are three philosophers discussing political ethics from entirely different perspectives. This paper argues that Socrates, Machiavelli, and Rousseau are all idealists regarding their stances on political ethics. First, this paper argues that Socrates is an idealist due his belief that the current government has much more potential than it is currently reaching, and that the government could eventually be changed. Second, this paper argues that Rousseau is an idealist because of his unrealistically positive view of the natural state of humanity and negative view of society. Lastly, this paper argues that Machiavelli is idealistic because of the overwhelming, impossible number of criteria that the Prince

Lao-Tzu's "Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching" and Machiavelli's "The Qualities of a Prince" both have the ultimate goal of making better leaders. The tactics that each writer chooses to present as a guide for the leader are almost opposite of each other. Today's American government would benefit from a combination of the two extreme ideas. Lao-Tzu's laissez-faire attitude towards the economy, as well as his small scale, home defense military is appealing to a liberal person. Machiavelli's attitude towards miserliness and lower taxes, while being always prepared for war, would appeal to a conservative person. The writers are in agreement on some issues, such as taxes, but other ideas,

The structure of our American Government, was founded in the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution was written to be the “supreme law of the land”, and creates a federal democratic republic, where citizens govern themselves (Our American Governement, n.d). The purpose of our government, is to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” (Our American Government, n.d.). For our country to achieve this purpose our Founding Fathers created three main principles, “inherent rights, self-government, and separation of powers” (Our American Government, n.d.). Government was developed to ensure order in society and protect its citizens, but with all systems there are strengths and weakness, let’s examine those strengths and weakness. Let’s first look at the strength and weakness of the U.S. Constitution.

A just and fair world filled with just and fair people does not exist- it is a utopia. This

Human reason has been one of the guiding principles in our society since the beginning of time and because action is preceded by thought, these two go hand in hand. Every choice we make is based on our thinking process, differentiating between what is good or bad, and contemplating cause and effect. Machiavelli, Locke, and Marx all have distinct conceptions of human nature, which has led to a variety of conclusions regarding the political structures of society that still have resonance today, which goes to show how much of an impact their theories have.

Perhaps in his time Lao-Tzu viewed that his interpretation of human nature was entirely possible, but as far as the twenty-first century is involved, the idea that if societies are left unattended we are able to “Trust them” (§ 75, 59) is absurd. It can be argued legitimately that Lao-Tzu’s concepts have been applied and in fact have proven to be extremely effective. For example, a capitalistic, laissez-faire approach to governing, particularly the form advocated by American Republicans. However, cases of removing regulations and adopting the leadership standards Lao-Tzu advises have been strictly applied to market economics, not to each and every facet of government.

The American government is known to promote democratic values throughout the world. Though the ideals America was fighting for during the Cold War, the government still managed to participate in the overthrow of democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. Mossadegh threatened to nationalize Iran’s oil in 1951 and later gained the support of the Iranian government. The British companies had many investments in Iranian oil. It is with the approval of nationalization that the economies of both British and Iran were ultimately harmed. The British government requested the help of the US so that they could perform a coup to overthrow Mossadegh. With suspicions of Mossadegh supporting communism, and being supported by the Tudeh Party, the United States government was willing to sacrifice their democratic ideologies and credibility in the region for the insurance of an anti-communist leader. This would prove to cause problems that still resonate in today’s political and military negotiations in this region.

In addition, Machiavelli basically was saying that a prince is better called a stingy as he describe it instead of spending all of his money and the money of his people to be called generous. I remember when I was in Iraq; the Iraqis despised the fact that Saddam was giving their money to other countries or other African Nations and his people were poor. I believe that was one of the major reasons that made Saddam fall; it was that he spent much of the money that belonged to the people as he liked only to be called generous by other countries. To be miser and not spend the money of the people is better than to be called generous and your people are not satisfied with you. With all of the crimes that Saddam committed against the Iraqis during