Niccolo Machiavelli 's The Qualities Of The Prince And Lao Tzu

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.

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

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.

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

Machiavelli wrote The Prince in 16th-century. His methods of acquiring and maintaining rule over people are not relevant in today’s modern American society. There are many principles that are still true in politics today, but the methods of ruling can no longer be used in American society today.

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.

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

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

Lao-Tzu believes that a ruler should be barely noticed. “When the Master governs, the people are hardly aware that he exists.” (Lines 16-17) He is also very against violence and is a huge believer in a leader should not wage in war. Machiavelli, again contradicts Lao-Tzu’s views. He, on the other hand, views a government as a strong leadership. Very controlling and demanding. The way he views government could resemble to a dictator. “Machiavelli’s view points on a governing system relates to dictatorship. This is the government that is in absolute power exercised by a dictator. A dictator is a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force.” (Harris) Clearly, Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu have different opinions on how a ruler or leader of a government should rule or

This especially shows in his teachings, as he states " I have three things to teach: simplicity, patience, compassion. These three are your greatest treasures (Stanza 67, Page 32)." If you have these three qualities, the people will be satisfied; therefore, they will not hate you. In that time period, the people wouldn't know the leader existed, and would be blissfully unaware and content with their lives. Lao-Tzu teaches a very distant or laid back way of governing, which might not work in today's society, with the constant media coverage of world leaders. However, some of Lao-Tzu's other teachings are applicable to the modern world. Machiavelli acknowledges that being hated, is something a prince should be cautious about. He believes a prince "should think about those things which make him hated and despised; and when he's avoided this, he will have carried out his duties and will find no danger whatsoever in other vices (Paragraph 25, Page 50)." Later in the section, he teaches the prince to have hubris, as known as excessive pride, so no sane person would ever conspire against a "man with such a reputation (Paragraph 26, Page 50)." Both advisors believe that a leader's people should not despise them. Despite this, they both have different ways to help the leader avoid

I have always found great interest in the infamous Niccolo Machiavelli and his ways of thinking; my eye was drawn to him long before I knew I would be studying at Colorado State and even before I had any interest in politics. It was from young man know as Tupac Shakur, and let me tell you it is great to finally understand who Machiavelli is and the things he has done for the outlook on politics after hearing about how much respect and praise he got from the iconic rapper of the 1990s. In this paper I will be analyzing and contrasting Thomas More’s “Utopia” and Machiavelli’s “The Prince” and their ideas on subjects that include good governance and social orders, key reforms, and who should be held responsible for providing good governance and an orderly society.