Lao-Tzu Vs Machiavelli

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

Lao-Tzu wrote the Tao-Te Ching back in sixth century B.C.E as he was exiling himself to a life of contemplation. Before he left, the gatekeeper convinced him to write down his philosophical thoughts. Machiavelli was an elite who lived in Florence during the late 1400s and the early 1500s. He wrote his instructions, The Prince, during the instability of power within Italy after he was wrongly imprisoned. Both texts give advice on the ways in which to rule a country, but because of the times in which they were written, they promote separate ideas on the role of a leader, the view of humanity, and the way their information should be presented.

In The Prince, Machiavelli uses many examples of battles and people to emphasize and illustrate his points. He exalts some as examples of great leadership, and condemns others for their mistakes and imperfections. Machiavelli, in the Prince, praises Philip of Macedon for fighting to hold onto his country, and for holding onto most of his kingdom even after surrendering a few cities to Rome. His purpose in doing this was to provide an example of a prince that did the opposite of the princes of Italy, and to further reprimand the princes of Italy for allowing their kingdom to slip through their fingers. And yet, Machiavelli only speaks on Philip’s last war, and praises only his preparedness to go to war, not mentioning the amount of power

Being a ruler means having power over others for a particular reason. This reason can mean you are the most intelligent, best fighter, or maybe you were born into the thrown. Whichever way you this was brought upon you, you have values or morals that follow the ruler ship. These morals depict the way you rule and how people follow you by these rules. When in power the ruler just wants to have the best country, in the way they think is the best. You may not be liked by everyone thinking this way but at least you are doing what’s right for your country. Rulers have a huge job, they can’t always please others or do what they think is right. They have to think about the people as a whole and do what’s best for them. Lao-Tzu Master and Machiavelli’s Prince can be compare through: they’re both powerful, their superior to others, and both want the best for their countries.

Machiavelli’s “The Prince” brought up some controversial characteristics on what a Machiavellian ruler is. The characteristic that was most stressed was that “A prince must have no other objective, no other thought, nor take up any profession but that of war.”(Machiavelli 37). With a main focus on the art of war a ruler can protect the state he governs from attacks against him and his state. Machiavelli offers us an analogy to prove the importance of war. He speaks of two men: one armed and one unarmed. He tells us how it would be unrealistic to believe that the armed man would obey the unarmed man. It would also be unreasonable to expect that the unarmed man would feel safe and secure if is servant held a weapon that could cause death.

Machiavelli and Socrates’ respective beliefs on political thought are shaped by how they view the world. Machiavelli looks at the world through a realist scope. He sees the world as how it is, not how it should be. Machiavelli is often dubbed the “father” of realism and his ideal political system reflects that. He believes the paramount interest of a state is to protect its political autonomy. He instructs princes to be cunning, deceitful, and constantly suspicious of other rulers. The Prince will be judged by the results of his reign rather than the means he used to achieve them. War for Machiavelli is good; it allows the Prince to broadcast his power, instilling fear in other rulers. Socrates would oppose this mindset and outlook on the world. He would instead take a more idealized approach to political affairs. Socrates would instruct a Prince to look at other sovereign rulers as potential allies. War, for Socrates, is the last resort, if an option at all. Socrates’ prince would work tirelessly to settle disputes with diplomacy

It must also be known that this man lived in an era 500 years past. He may have only wrote the book as a way to please the political power of his time. Machiavelli's mind can only be known by someone who knew him on a personal level.

Machiavelli states that if there’s good laws then there’s good militaries. “The presence of sound military forces indicates the presence of sound laws.” He describes the relationship between developing states and war. He believes that a successful war is the key to which all states are built. the role of armies is to defend the kingdom and the expanding of new territories. There are the prince’s troops, and the mercenary and auxiliary troops which are dangerous and useless. “Again this is in the normal, natural way of things; a ruler is bound to upset the people… then with all the endless injustices consequent on any invasion.” Machiavelli is basically saying that war is normal and that it’s necessary for all new rulers to maintain

Machiavelli's writings were about what he felt politicians were truly about. That being: a world dominated by greed, ruthlessness, lies, intrigue, deception and even murder. The picture our media and our government paints for us, about many other country's governments, including Iraq, Iran, Russia, China, and many others, is one of such greed and deception. Many

A drop of water can break a mountain in half but so can a stick of dynamite. This is how the writings of Machiavelli and Lao Tzu can be tied in together. They both believed that their way of instructing a leader was the best way and for their time period they where right. Lao Tzu being from the 6th century BC and believing in the “Tao-te Ching” in contrast Machiavelli of the 16th century with the holy roman church attacking every Pagan. Both believing in a higher and the both Bibliographies preach two allowed two very different styles of living.

Machiavelli believed that humans are evil. He thought that they were always seeking power, when they were faced with problems they were too self-interested, and many people in power just wanted to be better than others. He believed people were uncontrollable unless they were ruled by a powerful force, and this is where the Prince came in. They were “all-powerful” and supposed to be the only thing that can change or influence the people.

Lao-Tzu believes a ruler should see the good in all of his people and trust in them that they will do the right things. However, Machiavelli comes from a completely different view on this subject. He advocates the need for a successful leader, or prince, to take control of his endeavors, and the skills or qualities necessary to maintain power. He suggested this method of becoming a powerful prince through the history of Kings that have lived and lead in the past. Machiavelli uses a ruthless amount of power; he does not worry about his reputation to the people, unfortunately, he just does what he thinks is

In Machiavelli’s world, he believes it is morally correct for a Prince to sacrifice the people before ever letting his own government collapse. Machiavelli continues to show where his morals lay with his investment in foreign affairs as he puts a lot more focus in external affairs than internal, in wanting to conquer smaller and weaker states around him. In terms of foreign affairs Machiavelli’s morals towards war is presented as once again the state over the people. When entering war he explains to the people that these difficult times are only temporary, even as their “houses having been burned and their possessions destroyed” (The Prince, 47). The Prince still creates a patriotic feel and an obligation from the people to be grateful and have love for their Prince because he has made them believe that he has protected them from outside foreign attacks. It is evident that Machiavelli has high morals for war as he states that a Prince “should have no other thought, or take up anything as his profession, except for war and its rules and discipline, for that is the only art that befits the one who commands” (The Prince, 63). These moral views of what a Prince should prioritize according to Machiavelli are views that Socrates would not agree with.

One of famous Machiavelli's words is: “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.” In 1513, he published a treatise called The Prince in it, Machiavelli recommended a very practical course of action for a ruler; secure power by direct and effective authoritative means. Machiavelli constantly tells us that he is describing the world as it really is, not as it should be. Throughout the years Machiavelli’s view of human nature has come under much criticism. Some would argue, like one famous chinese philosopher and writer named Lao-Tzu that "The best leaders are those the people hardly know exist."

Taoist’s thought that wars would cause sorrow and sadness. According to Lao Tzu, “after great wars, there follow bad years” (p. 160). This is referring to the loss of loved ones and the poverty which most countries endure due to the money spent rebuilding, and on the military for such warfare. The Machiavellian view was that if the government is stable, it should “be able to prevent the misery caused by warfare” (p. 184). In order to prevent the finical misery to the people caused by war, Machiavelli thought a prince should “tax them, and do everything he can to get money” (p.