Many believed if they took a little bit of Machiavelli and a little bit of Lao-Tzu they would have had a proper leader. They are both strong minded individuals and had good points on what should and shouldn’t happen. Many people didn’t agree with their styles of leadership, but still followed their rules. Even though these two had different takes on how being a leader should have been, they still give valid reasons on why they handled situations the way they did. Lao-Tzu was the laid-back, hands-off type of leader. Everyone respected him and the people knew his role as a leader. He would only step in and take charge when necessary. He put a lot of trust in people and was against violence. Lao-Tzu said “The master does his job and then stops. …show more content…
If he thought someone was trying to deter him from his leadership he will not question it, but would have made an example out of them. All of his people despised him because of how he treated them, and if they had the opportunity to kill him they would have. A scene from the movie “Training Day”, shows the dirty cop, who was finally about to get what he deserved by the rookie he was training that day. He thought because he was in his “hood” that his “people” would have his back and handled it for him so his hands wouldn’t get dirty. Instead, they let karma handle the situation because they were sick of his disloyal ways. Machiavelli knew the kind of world he lived in and knew that if people were given an inch they would have taken a mile, so he always had his guard up. He says “A morally good person would have to compete with the mass of people, who, he says, are basically bad” (Machiavelli 220). This is very true, in today’s society its every man for himself. If Machiavelli was a teacher he would have been one with tenure, they can basically say or do whatever they want and will not get in trouble. He was the type of person either people feared him or hated him but he knew everyone would respect him or they could suffer the consequences.
Conjoining these two would have made an awesome dual. Too much of Machiavelli drove his people crazy and not enough of Lao-Tzu let his people think they could do as they pleased. They
Mao Zedong was a very influential man in history. He forever changed the face of Chinese politics and life as a whole. His communist views and efforts to modernize China still resonate in the country today. Jonathan Spence’s book titled Mao Zedong is a biography of the great Chinese leader. Spence aims to show how Mao evolved from a poor child in a small rural village, to the leader of a communist nation. The biography is an amazing story of a person’s self determination and the predictability of human nature. The book depicts how a persuasive voice can shape the minds of millions and of people. It also shows the power and strength that a movement in history can make. This biography tells an important part of world history-the communist takeover of China.
Almost any place that you live in, you will find that there is some sort of government set up there. A government is basically a form of system of rule, by which state, community, etc. is governed by. Although, most places do have a government set up, the type of government in which they have differ from each place. One of the most popular forms of government that is used often today would be democracy; this means that the government is ruled by the people. Monarchy is another one that you should be aware of because it is one of the oldest forms of government and it is still used today in some places. A monarchy government consists of the rule
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.
Mao and Gandhi both had a lot to offer, and they both expressed themselves in different, but effective ways that changed China and India forever.
Lao Tzu: I will ensure that the people know that I need them to sustain. I will be a leader who is full of humility, as “humility is the root from which greatness springs” (Tzu 59). I am dependent on the people whom I rule. I am sovereign to them. I am the worthless one. I will not take expensive vacations using the people’s money. I will not wear designer clothes at the people’s expense. I would rather take care of the people. I do not want to be an expensive leader at the expense of my people because “[it] is not wise to shine like a jade and resound like stone chimes” (Tzu 60).
(Qian 26) Through his support of who he thought was the best man to lead China, Li portrayed another Confucian virtue; "'What should I do to win the hearts of the people?'
Lao-Tzu wants a good relationship with the people. A leader should be loved and not feared. Machiavelli thinks that it is best that the leader have fear over the people. Machiavelli says, “I reply that one should like to be both one and the other, but since it is difficult to join them together, it is much safer to be feared than loved when one of the two must be lacking.” (Machiavelli 44). If you rule in fear, people will not respect you nor will they like you. The people are just doing what the leader wants because they fear the consequences of not doing it. If I was in a relationship with my boyfriend, I would want to have a good relationship with him. If my boyfriend abuses me and threatens to hurt me if I ever leave him, of course I would listen to him and do what he says. I do not want to get hurt. I don’t want my boyfriend to physically abuse me or mentally abuses me in any way, so I would listen to him. He put that fear into my mind so I would do as he says. If someone told me if I left my boyfriend and they are sure that no harm will come my way, I would definitely leave him. I do not want to be around or associated with some who abuses me. I rather be with someone that I respect and have a good relationship with.
In The Prince, Machiavelli separates ethics from politics. His approach to politics, as outlined in The Prince, is strictly practical. Machiavelli is less concerned with what is right and just, and instead with what will lead to the fortification of the government and the sustainment of power. Machiavelli believed that a ruler should use any means necessary to obtain and sustain power. He says, “…people judge by outcome. So if a ruler wins wars and holds onto power, the means he has employed will always be judged honorable, and everyone will praise them” (Machiavelli, 55). According to Machiavelli, the ends of an action justify the means (Machiavelli, 55). His motivation for these views in The Prince was the reunification of the Italian city-states (Machiavelli, 78-79). Machiavelli wanted Italy to return to its glory of the Roman Empire (Machiavelli 78-79). Some of the beliefs of Machiavelli could be perceived as evil and cruel, but he found them necessary. Machiavelli was not concerned with making people happy. His purpose was outcome and success, and in his opinion, the only way to be successful was to be realistic. These views of Machiavelli could classify him as one of the earliest modern
For all of Machiavelli’s ruthlessness and espousal of deceit, he knew the value of authenticity and relying on his administration. A true leader cannot achieve greatness alone. Machiavelli says that the prince is the state, and the state is the prince. This means that whatever vision and principles the leader holds in the highest regard, they must be known to the state so that they can be realized. He believed that no matter how a prince was elected, his success would depend largely on his ministers. Collaboration between a prince and ministers would create an atmosphere of harmony and camaraderie, highly reducing the chances of rebellion. Without the support and cooperation of the people, military action is not possible, expansion is not possible and most importantly, governance is not possible. If a leader does not satisfy the needs of the people, they have the power to overthrow him through strength in numbers. Thus, a leader depends just as much on the people as they do on him. A leader must be able to convince the people to buy into his visio...
The era of the Italian Renaissance was a time period for many great thinkers whose minds helped shape the way that people see the world today and Niccolo Machiavelli is certainly no exception. He is most assuredly one of the top philosophical and political minds in the history books and has been an inspiration for many leaders. Unfortunately, tyrannical dictators such as Adolf Hitler were known to use Machiavelli’s teachings in their quest for power so the world has not always viewed this man in the most positive light, even with the things that he tried to teach.
... war. This can root back to the principle that he dissented against the wish for power. Lao-tzu advises that “[w]eapons are the tools of violence; all decent men detest them. Weapons are the tools of fear; a decent man will avoid them except in the direst necessity and, if compelled, will use them only with the utmost restraint.” (31) However, these days, governments tend to be keener in taking part in wars. Although we might claim that governments are trying to protect their country and their people, but it still contradicts with Lao-tzu’s ideals and might be seen as unnecessary in his view.
What would you do if you discovered a secret that can make your life better? Not just any ordinary secret, but a special one that would tell you how to gain power/ control over others and maintain it. Would you share it with others? Well that’s what writers have been sharing for centuries; yet many of us are still unaware. The very concept of Power is extremely important especially since we the people can give it to others but never ourselves. Well two contemporary authors in regards with the subject of power are Niccolo Machiavelli, and Robert Greene. Although generations apart, both are very influential writers that have had an ever lasting impact on human history through their works. Machiavelli with his the Prince, and Greene with the 48 Laws of Power. Although Robert Greene as an author surfaced quite recently in 1998; however, the amount of notoriety he carries has quickly earned him a spot on the list of influential authors. Though both books are subjected towards attaining and maintain power; however, they differ highly in its targeted audiences, and the manifestation of major themes. Such as Machiavelli, in The Prince mainly addresses the methods of achieving power in the political world by highly favoring rationality while disregarding moral ethical values. Thus exemplifying the famous phrase of “the end justifying the means”. Whereas Greene, on the other hand also addresses similar issue; however, he does it in a way that exposes the inner workings of the power struggles taken place in everyday situations. Overall, I believe that upon reflecting on the works of Robert Greene, and Niccolo Machiavelli one can clearly trace back resemblances and distinctions with each other. However, I’m consider that the reasoning behind ...
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 contrary, Machiavelli advocates the necessity for a successful leader, or prince, to take control of his endeavors, and the skills or qualities necessary to maintain power, at any cost. Since these thinkers both make an inquiry to what is essentially the same dilemma of effective leadership, it becomes almost a natural progression to juxtapose the two in an effort to better understand what qualities a prosperous leader must possess. In this sense, when we utilize the rhetorical strategy of compare/contrast as a vehicle to transport us to a more enlightened interpretation of Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli’s conclusions, it becomes apparent that Machiavelli’s effort is much more successful as his practicality serves its purpose much more effectively.
Machiavelli believed that, ethics and morality were considered in other categories than those generally known. He does not deny the existence of, but did not see how they can be useful in its traditional sense as in politics and in the government of the people. According to Machiavelli, a man is by nature a political angry and fearful. Machiavelli had no high opinion of the people. It is assumed that a person is forced to be good and can get into the number of positive features, such as prudence and courage. The prince can only proceed gently and with love, because that would undermine the naivety of his rule, and hence and the well-being of the state. He thought that, the Lord must act morally as far as possible, immorally to the extent to
Before going through this near death experience, I saw the role of a leader as a boss and my assumption was far from the truth. Lao Tzu says, “A leader