Lao-Tzu, Machiavelli, and the American Government Essay examples

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.

American History X is clearly a film dealing with the social topic of racism. The interesting thing about this film is the way in which the subject is presented. First of all, it is obvious that, though racism is always a difficult subject to deal with, American History X presents it without any reservations or dummying down. Second, the film's figurehead for racism, Derek Vinyard (Edward Norton), is not an unintelligent redneck racist as films often portray them, but is in fact well-spoken, charismatic and bright, although he clearly holds ideals that are terribly wrong. Finally, the film shows that it is not only the white, neo-nazi racists who are fools for being involved in this, but all those who hold hatred in

Each type of government holds different views as to the role the leaders and citizens should perform in their country .Different types of government include, oligarchy where the government is run by the best leaders, Tyranny, where they believe those in power should have complete control over its people. In the United States of America, we believe in democracy, rule by the majority. The main problem with our type of government is maintaining it. Our government and its citizens have lost sight of their roles and responsibilities, in government.

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

Lao-Tzu is not exactly polar opposite of Machiavelli, although he is close. He believes that man in a state of nature is generally good and not greedy. What makes man greedy is overemphasis on material

Despite living thousands of years ago, Socrates and Machiavelli were both influential thinkers whose works are still relevant today. These two great thinkers and philosophers wrote about and extensively studied political systems. The influences of their work can still be seen today in constitutions and governments around the world. Were it not for their transcendent works, there is a real chance today’s systems of government would look very different. While no governments today exactly match those advocated for by Machiavelli and Socrates, their writings surely influenced other thinkers later on in history. Both of these philosophers advocated for different leadership structures with the hope of creating fair and long-lasting states.

The American Revolution was when the British colonies in America revolted against British rule for being taxed by people not even living on their land and gained independence by overthrowing British imperial rule under King George III. The French Revolution was a period of social and political upheaval in France, marking the decline of powerful monarchies and churches and the rise of democracy and nationalism. The French Revolution began less than two decades after the American Revolution. In many ways, the American experience was an inspiration for the citizens of France. But the people of the two countries had different situations and had different concerns, which influenced the way each revolution began, progressed, and ended.

Throughout history, it can be argued that at the core of the majority of successful societies has stood an effective allocation of leadership. Accordingly, in their respective works “The Tao-te Ching” and “The Prince”, Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli have sought to reach a more complete understanding of this relationship. The theme of political leaders and their intricate relationship with society indeed manifests itself within both texts, however, both Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli approach this issue from almost entirely opposite positions. Lao-Tzu appears to focus the majority of his attention on letting problems or situations take their course and allowing good to prevail. On the

Socrates and Niccolo Machiavelli were both incredibly influential in the development of Western philosophical thought, specifically in relation to ethics in politics. Machiavelli’s text The Prince, written during a period of political turmoil in Italy, outlines the necessary steps a prince must take to obtain both power and authority. Plato’s The Last Days of Socrates assesses the moral and ethical guidelines an ideal leader should possess through the beliefs and teachings of Socrates. While both texts had similar objectives, their opinions were quite contradictory. Socrates would have found Machiavelli’s concept of the “Prince”, and the government he creates to be both unethical and fundamentally flawed. Socrates places higher value on the maintenance and creation of justice, while Machiavelli stresses the process of obtaining and preserving power, unethical or not. Due to their differences in their ideas of virtue, knowledge, and justice it can be concluded that Socrates would not be supportive of the government in which The Prince proposes.

In his landmark political treatise The Prince, Italian diplomat Niccolo Machiavelli put forth a framework for ruling a people that is at once derided and deferred to even today. The highly controversial ideology calls for a firm, even ruthless form of leadership that commands respect through any means necessary. Machiavelli allows even for the use of fear, violence and evil where appropriate. But it is in defining where these tactics are appropriate that we enter a discussion about the American political process. In one respect, our electoral cycle differentiates the United States significantly from the feudal hierarchy of 16th Century Italy. In another respect though, a reflection on the wholesale corruption of the former Bush administration may suggest otherwise. Today, it may be argued that many conservative and Republican political figures closely resemble Machiavelli in their espoused extremism but in fact, differ from the philosopher in their overall intentions. Where Machiavelli underscored his framework with an understanding that rulership is for the greater good, regardless of the measures employed to maintain this, self-interest and greed are a common presence in today's political process.

Throughout the course of history, political philosophy has been dominated by two great thinkers: Niccolo Machiavelli and Socrates. Although both highly influential, Socrates and Machiavelli may not see eye to eye. When it comes to the idea of how an “ideal prince” would act, Machiavelli believes that they should lead through fear and follow a thirst for power, no matter the cost. Socrates, on the other hand, believes that they should lead through morality and have a healthy thirst for knowledge. Overall, these two would not exactly agree on what the actions of a good leader would look like or how a political system should be run.

Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke have different political philosophies, which describe different forms of government and power. The three philosophers provide insight on what they believe is the best form of government. Machiavelli ’s book, The Prince, is a handbook for rulers and how rulers accomplish effective political leadership.

Per Machiavelli human nature is defined as individuals having self-interest and loyalties that are easily gained or lost. People admire others for their honor, generosity, and courage, but rarely exhibit these virtues themselves. Individuals are loyal when they are happy with their surroundings and are likely to rebel when they are unhappy. The interests of the masses almost always benefit liberty and therefore liberty is more safely secured when in the hands of the citizens. The masses are strong but individuals are weak so it is unlikely that changes will occur to benefit one or few people, more people need to be involved to succeed. Additionally, masses are wiser and more consistent than a prince because they do not hold allegiance to anyone

Without considering morality, Machiavelli’s advice not only sounds plausible—it makes sense. He recognizes the challenge of ruling a people after taking out a well-loved ruler, making sure to eliminate all possible heirs to the throne to leave no question of authority, and never trusting mercenaries because they do not have genuine loyalty to the cause. Ultimately, he recommends eliminating any possible threats, no matter the means necessary. On the surface, this sounds brutal and unnecessary, but Machiavelli thoroughly backs up all of his claims through historical and recent events. Repeatedly, after giving a piece of instruction, Machiavelli lists several examples of rulers who exemplify relevant examples of either success or failure. He does not have an example of a perfect government to work from, but in analyzing various strategies that have worked—or not worked—in certain circumstances, Machiavelli constructs what he believes to be an indestructible political ideal. There is no doubt that the morality of this ideal is questionable, but his propositions

When it came to government and the structure of society Machiavelli and Socrates had opposing ideas. Machiavelli's idea of the perfect government in his letter to Lorenzo de Medici is that there is a hereditary principality where the prince is from the line of descendants that have previously ruled. He says hereditary principalities are better than mixed or new principalities because, " People will change their rulers willingly hoping to better themselves, and this hope induces them to take up arms against their prince" (Machiavelli 7). Ultimately Machiavelli believes in the need for routines and old traditions so people don’t feel the need to change anything. In his mind, he believed that change was detrimental, which makes sense given the unstable state of Italy at the time. After seeing rulers come in and out of Italy Machiavelli had concluded that such instability leads to ruin. Socrates had the idea that the best ruler would be the one who didn’t want to rule in the first place