American Government in Contrast to Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli

841 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Differences between Lao Tzu and Machiavelli Philosophies

American Government in Contrast to Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli In comparing and contrasting the governmental philosophies of the great thinkers Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli, I have found a pleasant mix of both of their ideas would be the best for America today. Lao-Tzu’s laisse-faire attitude towards the economy, as well as his small scale military is appealing to my liberal side, while Machiavelli’s attitude towards miserliness which causes low taxes appeals to the right wing. These great thinkers contradict the popular saying “all great thinkers think alike.” They have several ideas, such as taxes, that are the same, while other ideas, like the involvement of government in citizens' everyday lives are totally opposite. I shall start with the ideas of Machiavelli, then move on to Lao-Tzu’s, and finally a comparison and application into American life. Niccolo Machiavelli believes in a strong government. The leader should be strong and feared. I believe he gets this idea from the fear of God; no one is supposed to question God because he is so feared, and in the same sense, no one should question a strong leader. Machiavelli realizes that the leader should be feared, but not hated. A hated leader will probably be killed in a rebellion. One also can not be loved. Any compassion towards your citizens will make them believe you are weak, and they will rebel. He thinks a very strong military is necessary at all times, and that powerful arms should be available and in hand. This idea is similar to that of right wing America and our friends, the National Rifle Association, who believe assault rifles are America’s pastime. The nation should always be prepared for war, and should always be searching for new lands to conquer. T... ... middle of paper ... ...d let God sort 'em out" sort of attitude. The defense industry would be booming with a Machiavellian leader in the White House. The American government is already great, however, because it does have the power to balance out, so no strong leader, whether it be Lao-Tzu or Machiavelli, would be able to have too much power. When it comes to welfare, I don't believe either man really supports it. Lao-Tzu's laisse-faire attitude leads me to believe the people should be able to take care of themselves. Machiavelli doesn't believe taxes should be high, and you shouldn't really spend the nation's wealth. In addition, Machiavelli doesn't seem too warm hearted or caring for his people. This country does need a form of welfare, and neither of these men support plans to help it. I do not believe Machiavelli's honesty policy would go over too well in the United States.

Show More
Related

  • Summary Of Lao Tzu And Machiavelli's Views On Government

    1369 Words  | 3 Pages

    Lao-Tzu believes in love and trust for the leader whereas Machiavelli strongly believes in fear from the leader. These views are almost complete opposites when paying attention to basics but the more you pay attention there are some similarities to be found, the main one being that they both believe that if the leader is hated then they government will struggle and possibly even fail. These views are almost complete opposites when paying attention to basics but the more you pay attention there are some similarities to be found, the main one being that they both believe that if the leader is hated then they government will struggle and possibly even fail. Another thing that you would be able to compare is that they both genuinely wanted what was best for their people under rule even though their views were complete opposites. Machiavelli said, “It is much safer to be feared than to be loved when one of the two must be lacking,” written in Machiavelli 's Ironic View of History by Salvatore. As far as their views contrast though, it was a very clear and direct that the way they looked at the government was nothing alike. You have one that believes that the only way to rule is to be loved then on the other had you have someone saying that the best kind of ruler is one that is feared, and that being loved isn 't relevant in this case. Lao-Tzu views this way of the government because he feels that if the people are on his side about things, than always fighting against him. Machiavelli though, is more intense on the idea of decision making and thinks that a ruler has to be ruthless no matter what the case, and is willing to make the best decision even if it isn 't the popular

    Read More

  • How Does Castiglione Reflect Renaissance Humanism

    828 Words  | 2 Pages

    Machiavelli’s advice to a prince who wanted to hold power is that they have to instill fear into the people. He believes fear is important because it restrains men, as they fear being punished. Love will never help you hold power because it attaches people to promises. Machiavelli believes that since humans are wicked, they will break these promises whenever their interests is at stake. Men will devote everything to you if you serve their interests, but as soon as you need help, they turn on you. Therefore, creating fear in them is the perfect strategy. I feel like Machiavelli is being sarcastic and did this to get attention. He knew his way of thinking was different and would get the attention of the people.

    Read More

  • Comparing Morality in The Prince, Second Treatise of Government, and Utilitarianism

    2060 Words  | 5 Pages

    Niccolo Machiavelli, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill present three distinct models of government in their works The Prince, Second Treatise of Government, and Utilitarianism. From an examination of these models it is possible to infer their views about human nature and its connection to the purpose of government. A key to comparing these views can be found in an examination of their ideas of morality as an intermediary between government and human nature. Whether this morality must be inferred from their writings or whether it is explicitly mentioned, it differs among the three in its definition, source, and purpose.

    Read More

  • Plato vs. Machiavelli

    1692 Words  | 4 Pages

    A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.

    Read More

  • Nicolas Maduro's Machiavellian Struggle

    1502 Words  | 4 Pages

    First, Machiavelli’s method attempts to discard discussion of the “imaginary” political world and instead focuses on “real life” (Machiavelli 48). His end goal is to construct rubric for leaders to follow either to rule and unite (in this case Italy) in the Prince or create a powerful republic in the Discourses. His method is derived from comparing contemporary and historical events to illustrate and substantiate his argument. He is critical of how people interpret history (Machiavelli 83). He still believes that his ability to interpret and compare history is superior. Arguing that his methodological approach doesn’t just “chew” on history but actually “tastes” it (Machiavelli 83). Therefore we can understand that he justifies his method approach as not being akin to most because he possesses a much deeper understanding of history. Throughout his two books using ...

    Read More

  • Machiavelli and Rousseau's Views on Human Nature and Government

    558 Words  | 2 Pages

    Machiavelli’s views were drastically different from other humanists at his time. He strongly promoted a secular society and felt morality was not necessary but stood in the way of a successfully governed state. He stated that people generally tended to work for their own best interests and gave little thought to the well being of the state. He distrusted citizens saying, “In time of adversity, when a state is in need of its citizens, there are few to be found.” In his writings in The Prince, he constantly questioned the citizens’ loyalty and warned for the leaders to be wary in trusting citizens. His radical and distrusting thoughts on human nature were derived out of concern for Italy’s then unstable government. Machiavelli also had a s...

    Read More

  • Machiavelli vs. Lao-Tzu

    284 Words  | 1 Pages

    Machiavelli believes that a government should be very structured, controlled, and powerful. He makes it known that the only priorities of a prince are war, the institutions, and discipline. His writings describes how it is more important for a prince to be practical than moral. This is shown where he writes, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" (47). In addition, Machiavelli argues that a prince may have to be cunning and deceitful in order to maintain political power. He takes the stance that it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. His view of how a government should run and his unethical conduct are both early signs of dictatorship.

    Read More

  • Lao-tzu and Current Government

    792 Words  | 2 Pages

    Tao-te Ching (in English pronounced “dow deh jing”) is believed to be written by Lao-tzu (6th century B.C). However, it is not for certain that he wrote the book. Lao-tzu is translated as “Old Master”. He was born in the state of Ch’u in China. It’s been said that he worked in the court of the Chou dynasty. The day that he was leaving the court to start his own life, the keeper of the gate urged him to write his thoughts as a book. Lao-tzu’s work mostly illustrates Taoism –a religion founded by Chang Tao-ling A.D. 150. His main purpose in this piece is practicing peace, simplicity, naturalness, and humility. Lao-tzu believes that people are overloaded with temporal objects in this world. He recommends his readers to let go of everything and always keep the balance in anything. In my opinion, Lao-tzu would more likely dislike our government and the way that people live nowadays. The reason is because majority of the people are attached to secular things. To paraphrase the famous, people have materialistic characteristics in today’s world which is completely against Lao-tzu’s view.

    Read More

  • Comparison of Lao-tzu and Machiavelli

    726 Words  | 2 Pages

    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 Ching, and not as chaotic as Machiavelli illustrated in Prince.

    Read More

  • The Tao-te Ching by Lao-Tzu and The Prince by Machiavelli

    1754 Words  | 4 Pages

    As he begins to conclude, Machiavelli states that the prince: “should think about avoiding those things which make him hated and despised.” (Mach 48) Although these lack any withstanding moral values, they are effective in the sense that they better serve their purpose. Machiavelli was seeking to display a way to hold political power by any means possible not a utopian state. This may mean malicious acts, imprisonment, and torture, or it may mean the utilization of power to achieve a common good. Machiavelli doesn’t elaborate on this. He concentrates on a realistic approach towards government, as he remains concerned with the establishment and protection of power.

    Read More

  • Authority Vs Collaborative Leadership

    824 Words  | 2 Pages

    What that means is, a Ruler must take specific precautions to ensure that no one can overthrow the ruler, and restrict complete power. Machiavelli was essentially making a dos and don'ts list for a strong leader. In Machiavelli’s writing The Prince Machiavelli clearly expresses his views that “Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated” (Source B).This quote shows that a ruler should strike fear into the eyes of his jurisdiction, but he should not strike hatred or do anything that fuels an overthrowing of the hierarchy. Machiavelli also expresses his opinion about a Collaborative way of rulership (the wrong way) but the other side needs to be addressed

    Read More

  • Machiavelli's The Prince

    510 Words  | 2 Pages

    The prince discusses how to form a strong military and the importance of having a strong military to develop the city states that Italy had. His guidelines give the reader the tools to conducting a good war. Not just on the battlefield, Machiavelli also discussed the use of politics and strategy and the importance of being smart and well educated not only on the battlefield to gain strength. Throughout the text, machievele reminds the reader in order to remain in power; he must be kind to the people but must also be feared by them as well. This allows the prince to have support from his people but also prevent the people s want to overthrow his reign. The next two themes of fortune and human nature go hand in hand throughout machievelles writing. The Prince discusses the idea that certain scenarios happen because of chance and a person can never have control over everything; just as people have no control over human nature. Machieveles general advice to princes is that a person can turn against you at any time and trust can be lost easily. If a prince is able to fulfill these four themes, machievelle predicts the prince will be powerful and in great

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Plato And Machiavelli

    947 Words  | 2 Pages

    Notwithstanding the two philosophers’ different views on abstract concepts, Machiavelli’s virtù to fortuna is comparable to Plato’s Justice to Good. Each philosopher grants his ruler with a specific trait that deviates from the leader’s acquired knowledge of abstract concepts. Under their beliefs, the best ruler is the one who conforms to this virtuous trait--for Plato, Justice (Plato 519b-c), and for Machiavelli, virtù (Machiavelli, Prince 29). These traits then extend to a multitude of characteristics that define the careful instruction both philosophers laid out and that will allow the leader to directly change society into a worthy political

    Read More

  • Machiavelli's list of virtues

    1287 Words  | 3 Pages

    Through his many years of experience with Italian politics Machiavelli wrote “The Prince”; a how-to guide for new rulers. We are given descriptions of what a leader should do to effectively lead his country. A leader should be the only authority determining every aspect of the state and put in effect a policy to serve his best interests. These interests are gaining, maintaining, and expanding his political power. Machiavelli’s idea is that a ruler should use a variety of strategies (virtues) to secure his power. Machiavelli lists five virtues that a ruler should appear to have; being compassionate, trustworthy, generous, honest and religious. A ruler should possess all the qualities considered good by other people.

    Read More

  • Reaction to Machiavelli's The Prince

    910 Words  | 2 Pages

    Machiavelli argues in chapter 5 that the key to taking over a free state is initially to destroy it. By destroying the city, Machiavelli believes that the citizens will have no choice but to follow the direction of the new prince. He goes deeper to say that if a prince who occupies these cities does not destroy it, he risk the probable outcome of a rebellion. This rebellion is brought fourth by the tradition held by the citizens and the memories of the former way of government. The second step is to live there in person to establish loyalty and the third step is letting the people live by its own laws, but establish a small government who is loyal to you to keep it friendly. Chapter 6 gives us some insight on what Machiavelli feels leadership is. Leaders, he explains, are followers too in many ways. All leaders are imitating great rulers in history. A leader who really wants to achieve glory, does so by his own prowess, meaning by his own talent. Anyone can inherit a kingdom, but not anyone can rule it with natural leadership. This kind of leadership is what makes great leaders in history such as Moses or Cyrus. Chapter 7 explains that a leader should not try to buy his subjects. If a prince buys his subjects they will only temporarily be loyal. A prince needs to eliminate his enemies and do so all at once. Even if a prince does not succeed in ruling by his own prowess in his lifetime, he is still setting a good foundation for future princes which is just as important. Chapter 8 explains the level of evil that should be done in order to rise to power. He gives us clear insight of the pros and cons of obtaining power by evil means and how to use evil in ways of benefit. Machiavelli was a man of manipulation.

    Read More

More about American Government in Contrast to Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli

Open Document