Lao Tzu Vs. Machiavelli

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.

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

Government is the authority that addresses, control and administers the institutions of a community. Every country has ruled by a governance structure. There are different kinds of government. This comparison is about the United States and Guatemala’s forms of government.

First and for most what is a government? It is an organization of power within a country. It also is defined as a force that drives policies and affairs of states that are conducted. The government consists of three branches known

The most obvious difference between Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli are their moral perspectives and beliefs. Lao-Tzu is very mellow and easygoing person. He believes that the best government is one that runs itself, in the sense that the government should have very little control. Lao-Tzu is very passive. In his section titled Thoughts of the Tao-te Ching, Lao-Tzu says, “The world is sacred. It can’t be improved. If you tamper with it, you’ll ruin it. If you treat it like an object, you’ll lose it” (208). This quote strengthens the claim that Lao-Tzu believes in a government with little control. This is most accredited to his religion. He is a person of the Tao, and he is very reliant on the ‘Master’, or the god of Taoism. He believes that the Master controls everything, yet does nothing in the sense that people hardly are aware that the Master exists. Because of his knowledge of the Tao and the expectations of the Master, Lao-Tzu

Unlike what we see in the articles of lao-tzu and Thomas Jefferson. Machiavelli, in comparison, has almost no faith in human nature. He believes a monarch is better be feared than loved. And he believes that people should be strictly controlled by the monarchies. It is like what Hannah Arendt described in total domination, where there is no trust between the elite and the people. Even in some violent way, suppression is acceptable. Different from both lao-tzu and Jefferson. Lao-tzu believes that any kind of war is destructive and unnecessary. Jefferson believes that war fought to defend oneself is destructive but necessary. On the other hand, Machiavelli celebrate the act of war and praise the ones who prepare for war. These ideas seems cruel

In legal terms, a government is a set of laws and regulations exerted on a group of individuals. Such an abstract concept, however, would be ineffective without citizens that enforce the established mandates of the government. Thus, the

Throughout history, each and every leader has different ways of leading their people. Many thoughts are expressed how to lead a country wisely, however, thoughts change as time grows on and a new era emerges. When comparing The Qualities of the Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli and Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching by Lao-Tzu, both men have very different opinions and strategies to lead their people. Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli have dissimilar opinions on war and military matters, the good qualities of a leader, and the nature of their people. When Lao-Tzu approaches a problem or an issue, he allows the majority of the problem to take its course and fix itself and let the good come out on top. Machiavelli’s methods promote the necessity for a good and successful prince to take control of his issues and the skills necessary to maintain power at any cost. However, both Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli were both philosophers who cared about how their people viewed them.

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.

With all that has changed since the time Lao-tzu lived and since Machiavelli’s era, it is important to note the ideas that remain. Those ideas find support within political parties, and they conflict in the same way that the Tao-te Ching and The Prince have for so long. What remains is a standoff between two extreme ideologies. I do not mean to suggest that a modern leader should be like neither Lao-tzu nor Machiavelli, rather the opposite. I believe that a good leader should be like Lao-tzu, Machiavelli, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and every other successful leader that came before him. The key to being a good leader is knowing when it is appropriate to think like Guatama Buddha, and when to use battle strategies similar to those of Alexander the Great. Ideal leaders do not debate over which of the great strategists from the past is best; they understand the individual strengths that made historical figures successful and know when to use each one. An intelligent leader views two extremes, understands the arguments for both sides, and decides which is better. An ideal leader decides which strengths from each argument would form the best

Machiavelli and Socrates reveal strong beliefs and principles regarding the manner in which a government should operate, reflecting their ideals to their current states. Socrates emphasizes the importance of truthfulness and justice in governmental systems and Machiavelli focuses on having a determined ruler than can lead the state into success. Both men lived during a time of uncertainty and instability, desiring to change their society for the better. Socrates would view Machiavelli’s Prince as a unacceptable ruler due to Machiavelli’s emphasis on deceit and power, while Socrates bases his government ideals of justice, honesty, and morality.

Government is an important thing. It keeps some civilizations going. It keeps things and people from going crazy or insane. A government keeps things right. The government makes the laws and can sometimes make good or bad laws.

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.

Merriam-Webster defines government as, “the act or process of governing; specifically: authoritative direction or control” and power as the, “ability to act or produce an effect.” In Europe 1715-1914 governmental power shifted and changed multiple times. Thomas Paine 's critique of absolutism illustrated best the mutation of governmental power from 1715-1914 through his presage of future successful governments, such as Great Britain and France, who continued to procure thriving economies after modifying their governing bodies by decentralizing power from monarchs to representative governments.

Machiavelli believes that the purpose of the government is to protect the state by any means necessary and to use the leaders subjects in a way that could further their own political agenda. This is proven by how in the translated version of the prince it says "he learns to know his country, and is better able to undertake its defense". (Marriott 2013, 15) This shows that Machiavelli believed that a good and powerful leader must be able to know his surrounding country in order to properly defend his state from war which in turns shows that he believes that the purpose of the government is to protect their state from any threat of war. As the lecture states Machiavelli argued that the people under the king’s rule are essentially objects to be used for whatever the ruler’s political agenda was. (Hillier 2015) This includes the subjects being used as soldiers of war to keep the