Throughout the centuries, this world has maintained various leaders that have ruled far and wide, or a small domain. All of which had various roles, morals, goals, etc.; some infamous, some admired, and some truly despised. There is a vast amount of written works pertaining to become a great leader. Lao-Tzu and Niccoló Machiavelli are prime examples of people who have written works about the topic, yet their views and ideas differ greatly. Yet, despite their opposite views, their intake and thoughts about leadership, both Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli’s indulge logically and carefully on a more personal and human level. The topic where Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu’s views do not coincide is war, it’s where Machiavelli believes that “knowing” war is insanely important and essential to becoming a leader whereas Lao-Tzu believes war is a sad, unvictorious thing that is only …show more content…
Lao-Tzu desires a leader who confides in his people, to make them feel a part of the government, and to not control them. The logic and moral being: if everything is left to be do what it 's supposed to, everything will fall into place and a leader will not over occupy his or herself with duties that 's not meant for them. Not only that, but Lao-Tzu mentions what it would be like if an area is governed in a specific way, “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 (Verse 58, pg. 29).” Lao-Tzu, in comparison to Machiavelli, thinks a compassionate, involving leader befits governing a country. However, in an earlier verse, Lao-Tzu mentions that when the “Master” governs, the best kind of leader is one who hardly exists to the people, the other is one who is loved, and one who is feared, but the worst is one who is despised. Meaning that Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu are on the same spectrum when it comes to the quality of a good
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
In “Tao-te Ching” by Lao-tzu he believes that the government should leave the people alone. The people will work things out by themselves. He also believed in not doing too much for them, as he says in his literary work, “The Ancient Masters didn’t try to educate the people, but kindly taught them to not-know,” (pg 27 ¶ 50). In Machiavelli’s work, “The Prince” he believes that the government, or the Prince, should always be concerned with battle, and that it was a big role in the government. The government, in Machiavelli’s view, should try to control their subjects. He plays with the idea of being feared rather than being loved. Being fears is much better in his opinion. If the ruler or the government is loved, then there are a lot of obligations in line with that. If they people fear the government, then the subjects will fear the consequences of not following. However, they both agree on the subject of improvement. Machiavelli and Loa-tzu believe that if the people aren’t prosperous, the government has failed. In an article found in The Washington Post it tells of how the government should do its best for the sake of the people. In it, it says, “We will keep moving forth in order to do what we do best,” (Washington). In other words, the government should try to help the people to move
Since the being of time, humans have sought out law, or government. Governments have been set in place all throughout the world to try to maintain peace and order. As easy as it sounds, governments can be demolished without the right leader. However, that is the catch, what makes a good leader? Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of the Prince” and Lao-Tzu’s “Tao-te Ching” gives some ideas on how a leader should control their government. Although Machiavelli’s and Lao-Tzu’s ideas do not quite go hand and hand, there are some similarities. They both spoke similarly on how people should feel about their leader. Lao-Tzu views one of the best qualities
When comparing Tao-te Ching to The Prince there are numerous differences. The authors of these two documents had almost completely opposite ideas of how a ruler should behave and how a government should be run. One believed that the ruler could accomplish the most by doing the least; the other believed that by controlling how the public perceived a ruler was what would make him a success or a failure. Machiavelli believed that to rule the prince must do things that would win approval with his people, and that the prince must always keep and maintain arms to remain in power. On the other hand Lao-tzu believed that the master ruled with as little involvement as possible, he believed that to “not do” would have the greatest effect, and that to use arms as only a last resort. With just these two examples it becomes clear how different the authors viewed leadership and government.
However, it is because both Lao Tzu’s and Machiavelli’s ideas were too extreme, that the most effective government is to combine both ideas from the two philosophers in order to balance out. Lao believed that the less the leader or government intervenes; the happier the people. While Machiavelli believed that the importance of gaining power and holding the state is to be held at any cost. Hence a ruler who is both aggressive and passionate in moderation will be able to gain the trust of people, win their loyalty, and have the ability to stay in the government.
Thomas Hobbes and Nicolo Machiavelli were two men who lived in different eras, however, their philosophy is quite similar. In both “The Prince” and “Leviathan”, Hobbes and Machiavelli outline the need to have a sovereignty to achieve the ideal peace. To have a sovereignty, you must excel at war because others will try to fight and sovereigns have to protect their citizens. However, the way of achieving that ideal peace and becoming sovereign is different in the eyes of Hobbes and Machiavelli. Hobbes believes that the ruler should be well liked yet feared at the same time, while Machiavelli believes that a sovereign should always be feared because it will stop the chances of an uprising.
Machiavelli and Rousseau, both influential philosophers, were innovators of their time. They represented different ideas on what the state of nature and government should consist of, having both similarities and differences. Their viewpoints evolved from different time periods, which make them unique. Machiavelli, the sixteenth century Italian diplomat expressed, that a Prince should be unethical in achieving power. He argued that to be successful in politics certain qualities were of importance and ethics could not stand in the way. Machiavelli stated that a Prince’s power should be maintained in being feared and loved, and possessing control over the people. Rousseau on the other hand was an eighteen century philosopher and writer. Unlike Machiavelli, his view’s on political and modern philosophies were influenced by the French Revolution. Rousseau believed in a legitimate government that was elected by a civil society based on social contract. Both philosophers wanted to develop an ideal structure for the development of a functional society. They both had different tactics in doing so but aim for the same thing, a great society. Rousseau’s approach seems most persuading to me in the sense that is based off a group of people coming together and deciding what is best for the majority. Machiavelli influenced Rousseau in the context of political economy and social contract.
A leader must know how he is viewed by their people and be able to manage that view and of those around him. People should never think a leader is soft in order to discourage disobedience. However, he should be careful not to be viewed as so cruel that he disgusts his own people. He should seem strict but reasonable. Violence should always be used when strictly necessary and shouldn't be repeated too often to avoid a reputation for mindless brutality.
Machiavelli gave good advice for Renaissance rulers and for leaders today. Furthermore, it is important for a leader/ ruler to be able to get involved with the people that they rule. If they become involved the ruler will be seen as respected and even trustworthy. It is important to gain the trust of the people that you are in charge in, they expect you to make the right decision. It is necessary for a leader to put aside irrelevant matters and focus on the bigger situations, they should focus on the bigger picture that could eventually affect their peoples life. A good leader knows when he has done wrong and made a mistake, a great leaders knows that they did wrong and they also fix the problem to insure that it will not happen again. That
Perhaps the most distinct differences between Machiavelli's and Lao-Tzu's are their beliefs in how a government should be run. Whereas Machiavelli writes about the qualities a prince should have while instilling a totalitarian government, Lao-Tzu strongly believes that one cannot have total control, so everything should run its course.
Tzu believes there should never be a war. He states “Weapon are the tools of violence; all decent men detest them” (209). He believes there should not be war and if there ever was it is because a country goes “counter to the Tao [which is when] warheads are stockpiled outside the cities” (210). On the other hand, Machiavelli is more military based he advises princes to be forceful “A prince, therefore must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war, its institutions, and its discipline; because that is the only profession which befits one who commands . . .” (221). It seems as though Machiavelli believed a prince who did not have a strong army was not a real man nor a real
Leadership qualities demonstrate a vital role in the products of society. While governing over many individuals, it is necessary to manifest the required attributes and take precautions to lead a community as a whole to success. Lao-Tzu and Niccoló Machiavelli’s written works are prime examples on what it means to become a great leader, although they differ considerably in their views on the subject. The two historical figures offer distinct evidence on their approach to violence, their reputation, and the treatment of their subjects. Through opposing ideas and intake, Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli logically and carefully contemplate the appropriate means to maintain power.
What does it mean to be a leader? Leadership is a way in which a person can influences others to accomplish an objective. Leaders do this by applying their leadership qualities, such as beliefs, values, ethics, character, knowledge, and skill. Two really good leaders with their own way of thinking how a country should be ran. Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli both have the ability to run a good country. They have a lot of similarities but they also have a lot of differences that set them apart from each other. Our country needs someone who is loyal to the people and trusts them. A President is a leader and is someone who others will trust and rely on to make the right choices and decisions for his country. The American people should have a good relationship with the leader. I feel that Lao-Tzu would fit as a better President than Machiavelli because he puts his trust into the people and do what is best for them.
If more laws are in place, that only allows the people to find more ways to break those laws. Confucius and Laozi seem to concur on that aspect of the role of government. However, a key difference is embedded in wei; which refers to the interference of authority. If people are to behave according to wu-wei, they are acting naturally; and by conducting themselves in such a manner, order will arise spontaneously, without the need for a known leader. Laozi states that people should “Act, but through nonaction” (Laozi 63). If people force themselves to act in certain ways, such as the ways of those whom Confucius would say are their leaders, then they are acting in a manner that is unnatural. However, if people practice the concept of wu-wei with sincerity, then their behavior is spontaneous and effortless; just as water flows naturally around objects that are in its
The author discusses what he feels the role of a leader should be, the restrictions and the privileges that should be given to the people. There are various views on this particular passage even among Americans. Lao-Tzu feels that taking action in order to make people feel safer and ensure their well being will actually be detrimental; although I agree with Lao-Tzu's tactics, most Americans hold differentiating views.The more restrictions you place on a people, the less moral the people will be. Americans encounter this on a daily basis. American society was founded upon and is enraptured by rebellion. The early American colonists revolted against the English government.