Compare And Contrast Machiavelli And Lao Tzu Government

As society has changed, so have many other things. Such as our government. Over the years we’ve gone from a democracy, republic, communism, autocracy, oligarchy, theocracy and fascism. Lao-Tzu believed in Taoism, while Machiavelli prefered a republic. Which form of government is more accurately correct? The definition of government is; the governing body of a nation, state, or community. To see which of these two types of government is more accurate, we must compare them, to see the major differences. Three major differences between Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli’s belief of government are; war, fortune, and mercy.

One of the first major differences between Machiavelli and Lao Tzu’s belief is war... According to Machiavelli, war should be a profession of a prince. He suggested a prince to think about arms than personal luxuries, and he said being disarmed would make him to be despised,

and in Machiavelli's theory of foreign politics Marcus Fischer explains Machiavelli's Theory on war. “ Foreign affairs are central to Machiavelli's political thought hear the human condition shows itself most clearly as a struggle for domination which cannot be escaped hear the bathroom and Roman style Republic games greatness Empire and treasure hear his critique of ancient philosophy takes root namely that cities ordered for virtually learn their ruin at the hands of states organized for war accordingly the work of his foremost, interpreters contain decisions affect themes as Republican quest for Empire and glory minutes of sitting for protecting civil society by military orders and the malicious superiority over mercenaries.” However, Lao Tzu said, 'Violence, even well intentioned, always rebounds upon oneself”'. He suggested a leader not to force anyone because the outcome will result in revenge. He believed that if a person does not harm others, they will not harm the person as well. Furthermore, they had different ideas of preparing for war. Machiavelli encouraged a prince to train himself in peace time more than in time of war, and Lao Tzu said, 'No greater wrong than preparing to defend yourself”. It is obvious that Machiavelli emphasized on preparing war all the time, but Lao Tzu did not even mention about preparing war. In Reading Political Philosophy: Machiavelli to Mill Historian a political philosopher Isaiah Berlin give the critical account of some of the ways in which Machiavelli's work had been understood. “What Machiavelli distinguishes is not specifically moral from specifically political values what he achieves is not the emancipation of politics from ethics or religion which Croce and many other commentators regard as his crowning achievement; what he institutes is something that cuts deeper still- a differentiation between two incompatible ideals of life, and therefore two mortalities. One is the morality of the pagan world: its causes are courage, vigour, fortitude in adversity, public achievement, order discipline, happiness, strength, justice, above all assertion of one’s proper claims and the knowledge and power needed to secure their satisfaction; that which for a Renaissance reader Pericles had seen embodied in his ideal Athens, Lizy had found In the old Roman Republic that which juvenal lamented the decay and death in their own time. these seem to Machiavelli the best hours of mankind and Renaissance human humanity that he is, he wishes to restore them .”

In Conception of Evil by Sung-peng Hsu, Tao Te Ching explains what Lao Tzu would define war as.

“The purpose of this article is to show that there is a proper distinction between good and evil and lots of thoughts and to analyze the different aspects of his conception of evil. it will be argued that he recognizes two kinds of evils the first kind is that which causes human suffering in the world they are supposedly originated and the assertiveness of the human will the second kind of evil is the human suffering caused by the first kind will be shown that lots of philosophy of tail is deeply concerned with the elimination of these evils from the world one cannot fully appreciate his philosophy without taking into account his concern with evils and underlying the societal satirical motive in the course of this discussion we shall deal with the concept of suffering and human well the question of natural sufferings the distinction between good and evil in the final metaphysical status of evils and philosophy one of these many evils that loves to discusses is the human races choice of

war.”

Next there’s fortune. They also had different ideas about using money wisely. According to Machiavelli, a prince should not worry about being called a miser because he can save his income to use on war and prevent his people to pay excessive taxes. He thought being only generous would result in running out of money, but he suggested to show generosity when a prince must control the property of others. Lao Tzu is quite different. If the Master is wealthy, his people would suffer from poverty and robbery. He suggested not spending money on weapons for war and not charging too much tax. Machiavelli's way of managing a leader's fortune was concentrated on preparing war and avoiding hatred, but Lao Tzu wanted a leader to use money for his people.

Lastly there is the difference of mercy. Machiavelli let the leader to become cruel if he needs to be. He suggested that the leader must desire to be considered merciful, but he proposed him not to misuse his mercy because excessive mercy would harm the community. He thought excessive mercy would cause disorders and murders, so he proposed a need of cruelty to become united and prepare for any combat. The purpose of being cruel comes more clearly when he said, 'it is much safer to be feared than to be loved'. He thought showing his cruelty would command his large army more efficiently, And in The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli in chapter XVII concerning cruelty and clemency and whether it is to be loved than feared he explains what can happen when one is not feared. “Nevertheless a prince should inspire fear in such a way that if he does not win love he avoids hatred Because he can and you're very well being feared whilst he is not hated which will always be as long as he abstained from the property of its citizens and subjects and from there women but when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause but above all things must be kept in his hands off the property of others because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony besides pretext for taking away the property are never wanting for he who has begun to live by will always find pretext for seizing what belongs to others but reason for taking life on the contrary are more difficult to find and sooner lapse but when a prince is with his army and has control a multitude of soldiers then it is quite necessary for him to disregard the reputation of cruelty free without it would never hold his army United or disposed to its duties .” In contrast, Lao Tzu proposed a Master not to be cruel to his people at all. His proposing methods to treat the Master's people are all about mercy. He suggested a leader not to control his people because they will become more virtuous without prohibitions. Moreover, he said, 'Best is a leader who is loved'.
In conclusion, from the essay above you are able to see the major differences between Lao Tzu and Machiavelli. Both of these men have a general idea of the ideal ruler; however, in my opinion, Machiavelli’s description is more ideal. In a perfect world, a ruler would be able to essentially allow the people to rule themselves, but men can be very deceitful and greedy. Even if the mass is good, it only takes one bad egg to spoil the entire carton. I agree with Machiavelli’s statement that it is better to be feared than loved because there are people who do not respect love. And at the end of the day, a ruler must obtain the respect of his subjects in order to have a successful reign.