Comparing Machiavelli And Lao Tzu

What is government? Government is the governing body of nation, state, or community. Government determines the way any group of people are ran. There a several different types of government used all around the world. In the United States for example, uses a type of government that has three different branches of power. The Legislative Branch is the law making branch. The Judicial branch is the courts and the low enforcement. Lastly, the Executive branch is the presidential branch. “Each has its own responsibilities and at the same time they work together to make the country run smoothly and to assure that the rights of citizens are not ignored or disallowed.” (Osborne) Usually, governments break up the responsibilities into two or more groups. Two very influential writers wrote about their views on government; Lao-tzu and Machiavelli. These writers were in very different times which makes it very interesting to compare their views. Lao-tzu and Machiavelli had very different views on the ultimate purpose of government, the obligations of government leaders, and the main work of the state.

How should leaders approach the ideas of peace and war? This question has fascinated those in positions of power for ages. Ancient Chinese philosopher Lao-Tzu believes that war should only take place in the direst of situations and should not be considered virtuous (61; sec. 31). On the contrary, Niccolo Machiavelli, a fifteenth-century Italian philosopher, states, “A prince, therefore, must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war…” (86). While Lao-Tzu formulates an ideal approach to war and Machiavelli a practical one, neither one of their strategies would be effective in the real world; leaders must conduct their military with a balance of serenity and brutality.

Anywhere you go, there will be a community ruled by a leader. The qualities of leaders play a vital role in the success or failure of a society; if these qualities are effective, it allows the country to be successful and the ruler’s to fulfill the country’s needs. However, the absence of effective leadership qualities result in severe effects towards the country. When comparing the thoughts of Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli, it becomes obvious these two authors have different beliefs on how to be an effective leader. Machiavelli was a historian in Italy, a diplomat, a philosopher, a politician, and a writer during the era of the Renaissance. Lao-Tzu, during the 6th century, was an ancient Chinese philosopher. These two authors approach at almost entirely different positions. For this reason, it is a natural progression to collocate the two in an effort to better understand the qualities a leader should possess. To prove their philosophies, Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli have sought to reach a more complete understanding of each other’s thoughts on the subjects of war and weapons, qualities of leaders and the people, and how to govern.

An absolute that Machiavelli states for a prince is that they, “ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and disciplines” (88).

A leader is someone who will step up in the times of crisis and is able to think and act creatively in a difficult situation according to businessdictionary.com. A leader can also inspire others to be engage and to work together to achieve a common goal.

Machiavelli wrote “A prince, therefore, must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war, its discipline; because that is the only profession which befits one who commands;” He discussed that a Prince’s duty is war and only war. This lead to the second issue, war, which existed as long as the existence of human kind, as I am writing this essay there are still wars going on all over the world. According to

Machiavelli thinks it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. For a prince who is loved will be compassionate towards others, mainly his soldiers. When danger is at bay his men will hold him in the highest regard. Should an attack occur they will very quickly turn their backs on him. He may be viewed as weak and untrustworthy, thus easier to overtake. As he explains, “And men are less hesitant about harming someone who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared because love is held together by a chain of obligation which, since men are a sorry lot, is broken on every occasion in which their own self-interest is concerned: but fear is held together by dread of punishment which will never abandon you” (p.46). If he is loved rather than hated he can never keep an army of soldiers under his command. However, he must not be so feared to the point he is hated to do so he must not take what does not belong to him, and keep his hands off the wives of his subjects.

In addition, Socrates and Machiavelli would disagree on the most important form of education that a Prince should engage in. Machiavelli argues that the only important thing a Prince needs to study is the art of war. He goes so far as to argue that, “A Prince… must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he adopt anything as his art but war, its institutions, and its discipline.” He continues by saying that even during peacetime, a Prince needs to occupy his mind and train himself

Lao-tzu and Machiavelli’s Opposing Viewpoints The qualities a leader possesses plays a very important role in the success or failure of a society. If he favors war and discipline, then it will be a harsh living environment for his people.

It is important to recognize not only the strengths of the Tao-te Ching and The Prince, but also the weaknesses. There are some ideas present in these writings that are not practical for a modern American leader to follow. Lao-tzu writes that the best kind of leader is one that the people are hardly aware of; this would be nearly impossible for an American politician. The “Master” described in the Tao-te Ching is honest, humble, compassionate, and reserved. These traits are not what modern politicians strive to be, and are not practical characteristics in a person running for office. As unsettling as it may sound, American presidential candidates cannot be humble; they must prove to the public that they are the best fit for the presidency

Although the literature of Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu undeniably differ on many subjects, both touch bases on many of the same topics. They share their thoughts on war, people, and being hated. Through Lao-Tzu's calm temperament, or Machiavelli's angered tone, both advisors put forth their opinions clearly and effectively.

Is a leader as defined in the Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, merely one who leads - synonymous with a boss? Or something more? I believe that a leader is much more than that and can be defined in any number of ways. In attempting to define a leader personally, I will use both myself and others as examples.

Throughout ancient history, there have been a number of ways that human beings have attempted or succeed in governing people. There has been an assortment of religions or philosophical ways that were said to be the best way to lead people, in order to gain power, or whatever their goal might be. Many of these ideas went against each other, saying the other one was wrong. One example of this was Niccole Machiavelli and his philosophical view, through The Prince, that said it was better to be feared than loved as a ruler. Then there is the ancient ‘religion’ of Taoism that was founded by Lao-Tzu. In Religion of the World, it describes the basic virtue of this religion, “Taoists believe that if they

Good Person ​Machiavelli and Lao Tzu have different views on what a “good” leader is considered to be. Machiavelli describes the world as it really is not how the world should be. Lao Tzu describes how the world would be if the right person was in charge and makes the right changes. Both Lao Tzu and Machiavelli present their ideas to the world. ​A famous Machiavelli quote states: “a man who wishes to make a vocation of being good at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good.”

A leader is a person who takes risks, attempts to achieve shared goals, and inspires others to action (Marquis & Huston,