Lao-Tzu Vs. Machiavelli: Contradicting Leaders

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.

Serenity and peacefulness are Lao-Tzu’s focal points throughout “Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching.” By stating, “Violence, even well intentioned, / always rebounds on oneself.” he establishes his belief that war is problematic for everyone involved. (60; sec. 30). War disrupts the nature of peace which goes against everything that Lao-Tzu stands for. While having a country where war and violence are obsolete sounds ideal, it is not realistic. Leaders can only control their own people, and even then, they are at the liberty of what their people are willing to do. Lao-Tzu’s form of government only works if leaders from all around the world abide by the same principles and implement peacefulness among their own

Nicolo Machiavelli’s The Prince and Sun Tzu’s The Art of War both both provide directions for leadership with similar goals. The Prince is primarily geared towards providing valuable information about how a ruler of many principalities may govern different populations and acquire new lands. The Art of War provides us with a schematic of the optimal path to victory. This book is instead directed towards generals of powerful militaries with only the goal of winning. Concepts such as Machiavelli’s view of destruction will be contrasted with Sun Tzu’s victory-oriented argument for taking whole and several of their other ideas will be compared. Although Machiavelli and Sun Tzu have different intended audiences, many of their ancient tactics can

“Weapons are tools of fear. A decent man will avoid them.” Lao-tzu is against military action. The only way he is in favor of military action is in the “direst necessity.” And only in the most

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’s stand on war is not what one might expect; he believes that peace has more power than war and that all men with a good set of morals look down upon the men who seek to fight. Along with war being an unnecessary product of compromise, Lao-Tzu view’s weapons as a disgrace as well; this idea is shown on page 209 when he adds, “Weapons are the tools of violence; all decent men detest them.” He later then states, “There is no greater illusion than fear, no greater wrong than preparing to defend yourself, no greater misfortune than having an enemy,” (page 210). Lao-Tzu detests war and sees it as a shame to even take part of the hate that is involved with fighting. On the other hand, Machiavelli suggests that it is fit for a leader to show close to perfect fighting techniques on and off the battlefield. War is shown as a lesson of fortitude for leaders during his time, Machiavelli explains, “Its institution, and its discipline; because that is the only profession which befits one who commands; and it is of such importance,” (page 221). He later discusses, on page 222, how a leader must train in his free time to prepare and become the most powerful fighter of all the men by mentioning, “and in peacetime he must train himself more than in time of war; this can be done in two ways: one by action, the other by the mind.” One can conclude that Machiavelli defines a strong leader through both psychological warfare and hand to hand combat. He also sees war as a learning curve for the men who wish to become a leader; Machiavelli’s understanding off a strong leader

Government is the essential power of a country, which directly influences society because it provides somewhat of a security blank for those who are affected by it. Lao-Tzu’s, “Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching,” along with Niccolo Machiavelli’s, “The Qualities of the Prince,” both discuss multiple characteristics that a leader should possess to be a successful. While their goal is similar, in which they both describe what it takes to become a better leader, their ideas concerning leading are conflicting.

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,

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

Distinguishing the differences between Lao-Tzu’s Tao-te Ching, written in the early sixth century B.C.E., and Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Qualities of the Prince, composed in 1513, can be shown through major points that both pursue opposing opinions. Whether it is their view of war, their stand on leadership, or even how they believe the ruler should be perceived, Lao-Tzu and Niccolò Machiavelli always seem to be on a different page. Through their pieces of work, one can see how their views differ. Between Lao-Tzu wanting nothing but peace and harmony and Machiavelli seeing a need for power and fear, both are on two very different ends of the spectrum. Lao-Tzu’s stand on war is not what you’d expect.

In addition, Lao-Tzu’s disapproval of the use of violence also suggests that he wants people to essentially act in good faith. As a result, even when there are no rules to command people what to do, order in society is still maintained through the lack of violence. Furthermore, I agree with the idea of taking things as they come because it eases people into accepting changes they may encounter, which happens often in modern politics. This mindset helps to moderate transitions in power, such as the election of new members into office. Lao-Tzu’s hands-off approach to governing may seem daunting in a time where people have grown accustomed to excessive government regulations, but his ideas are interesting

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.

The ideas of Machiavelli and Socrates have influenced the leadership styles and approaches of leaders around the world. From Stalin to the founding fathers of the United States, Machiavellian influenced motives and ideals can be seen throughout modern history. Socrates is often referred to as the founder of Western philosophy, and his teachings have been passed on to leaders over the centuries. This paper will state both the Machiavelli’s concept of a ‘Prince’, and present Socrates’ perspective on the ‘ideal’ prince. It will then evaluate Machiavelli’s concept of prince from Socrates’ perspective, and decide as to whether Socrates would be supportive of a political system led by a Machiavellian Prince.

In conclusion, war should be the last resort to any conflict. After reading the Sun Tzu and Machiavelli, war requires five fundamentals, standards, tactics and critical thinking. War should be thought through carefully because there are consequence and unrepairable ramifications that not only affect us as an individual

Throughout history, there have been a variety of leaders. These leaders have varied greatly on their view point of what make a good leader. Some people prefer that one ruler is superior to others, while others tend to believe that all people are on equivalent levels. In addition, some people feel that everyone should have an equal amount of knowledge, while others feel that some people are superior to others. This essay will explore how Socrates and Machiavelli would have compared themselves and their beliefs. Socrates would not have appreciated Machiavelli’s concept of “The Prince”. Socrates also would not have supported a political system that “The Prince” would be willing to go along with.