Contrasting Insights Toward Government: Lao-Tzu Vs. Machiavelli
Essay Preview: Contrasting Insights Toward Government: Lao-Tzu Vs. Machiavelli
Report this essay
Contrasting Insights Toward Government:
Lao-tzu vs. Machiavelli
When comparing the views of Lao-tzu and Machiavelli, it becomes immediately clear that the two men think in opposing directions when it comes to government. Lao-tzu bases his theories that the Master should be about his people harmonizing with nature. Machiavelli wants his prince to authorize power over people and focus on war. The extreme differences in the two styles of government and leadership provide future leaders across the world with a variety of insights. Lao-tzu may be too naïve, and Machiavelli may be to over-bearing in their approaches to leading a country.
The government styles that Lao-tzu and Machiavelli each write about clash when they are compared to one another. Lao-tzu likes the idea of his people following the Master and being in harmony with the environment. Lao-tzu wants a government that is simple, with few laws, and with no violence. There is no point in making multitudes of laws and trying to control everything: “Do you want to improve the world? I dont think it can be done” (26). Lao-tzu is implying that no matter how hard the Master may try to change or improve the world, the world is how it is, and will remain that way; leaders must learn to be one with it and work with the environment instead of against it. The same principles were applied in the area of Lao-tzus government. Lao-tzu believed people were generally good, so if the Master treats them well, then they will, in turn, be good to the Master: “If a country is governed with tolerance, the people are comfortable and honest. If a country is governed with repression, the people are depressed and crafty” (29). In contrast to Lao-tzus naïve, calm approach to government, Machiavellis idea of a well-functioning government uses power to exert complete control over people. In opposition to Lao-tzus idea that people are generally good, Machiavelli believes that people are a “sorry lot” (46). Machiavelli more or less suspects that when the people are left alone, chaos will break loose, and they will act as barbarians. So, the people need power asserted over them at all times. The people need to be maintained through fear so they do not rebel and turn against their government.
The two men, Lao-tzu and Machiavelli, both want a leader that they sit fit for their own countries. They each have a very specific mold for this leader to fit in. Lao-tzu believed that his leader, the Master, should lead by example and let the people follow: “Act for the peoples benefit. Trust them; leave them alone” (33). If the Master motivates and encourages his people to follow by his example, the people will because they are good natured. All the people need from their leader is guidance, and then they will follow the path of the Master. People are capable of figuring the right way out if they have a leader who gives them opportunities to do the right thing, instead of telling them exactly what to do. The leader should want to be loved instead of feared or hated: “When the master governs, the people are hardy aware that he exists. Next best is a leader who is loved. Next, one who is feared. The worst is one who is despised” (24). According to Lao-tzu, the Master should not spend his or her time travelling; instead, the Master should stay in the home country, so as to not lose the sense of home or the people. Machiavellis sense of a leader disagrees with everything Lao-tzu thinks is right. While Lao-tzu thinks that one of the most important obligations of a leader is to trust his people, Machiavelli would never trust his people. He knows the dangers of trusting people; once they are trusted, they can easily turn on the leader. Since the people are generally