Instead of holding power and forcing rules, Lao-Tzu wishes to teach simplicity, patience, and compassions. He views the latter as "the greatest treasures" and if one has the three qualities, one will be a better person. Although similarities between Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu may be difficult to detect, their views are both very extreme. Machiavelli believes that the prince should have total control and do anything to gain power; however, Lao-Tzu desires a political system in which everything runs its own course.
The nature of a good life and its relation to political legitimacy is a subject which both Thomas Hobbes and Emma Goldman examine in their writings. Hobbes claims that only basic survival is necessary to live a good life because ultimately life is more valuable than comfort. Goldman on the other hand claims that freedom is far more important than simply living and a good life can only be lived by someone who is free to do as they please. In order for a political theorist to understand how legitimate governments and communities aught treat their citizens these theories are essential. For example, if a community holds a Hobbesian view than they will have a strong authoritarian leadership, whereas in a Goldman inspired community would have no coercive government except in times of crisis.
This is because the party in power has to compete with other parties in the next election after their term ends. This therefore ensures that the power currently in power works for the people, towards their needs or run the risk of not being re-elected. People have the right and freedom to criticize their government and policies, without the fear of being censored or penalized for their action. Democracy ensures that the government transitions are completed through peaceful process, rather than through violent means.
In many countries, governments tend to vary with their obligations based on the people and the ruler. Two ways of governing people would be democracy and monarchy. The two philosophers Lao-Tzu and Niccolò Machiavelli both saw how their governments operated on these two systems and decided to create their viewpoints of what a successful government should be. Lao-Tzu had a more positive view on the subject of government and had created a “master” that had specific obligations for the people to fulfill. Machiavelli, on the other hand, saw things in a more negative tone, his view on how his “prince” should rule does not entirely focus on what was good for the people; it allowed the prince to stay in power.
On the surface it may seem a very noble idea to pursue but it can also impl... ... middle of paper ... ...ideal , but it is the right form of government for people who have not reached a certain level of development. Locke believes that absolute monarchy is unfit for civil society because property is not safe under it and can be taken at the monarch’s whim. It is strange how Mill only talks in terms of two extreme forms of government representative and despotism , and does not tells a way from moving from despotism to government. However though his model of government is not bereft with defects it does provide some extremely fine framework and is more forward looking than Locke’s model in which the government doesnot aspires any intellectual or political thought but only maintains the status quo. In conlclusion, Mill’s notions of the government’s paternal role is praiseworthy but if looked at more closely it can create a lot of problems which Mill maybe overlooked.
The respected teacher stressed that the main goal is not to obtain a perfect state, but instead one should always desire to go beyond their current state. An individual must follow the Path of Duty and not leave the path. On his stance on stabilizing the government and building the trust, he expressed that “He concealed what was bad in them and displayed what was good. He took hold of their two extremes, determined the Mean, and employed it in his government of the people” (Confucius). The great philosopher believed that a strong central government should be built with people that possess both extreme but is balanced in the middle.
It is rather a partnership between households, clans, and villages for the sake of a fully developed and self-sufficient life. The polis gives those who possess wisdom and moral intellect a chance to move up to high positions Justice is the political good in the polis, and it must promote the common interest of the people. What is perceived to be good has to be distrib... ... middle of paper ... ...ld have authority rather than those who are "best fit to rule", and groups few in number. Although everyone in the polis may not be a political scientist, they can work better together with peers. With each individual having qualities of excellence and intelligence, they join to form a single entity.
On matters of power where there is much to gain and a lot more to lose, the concept of Machiavelli’s virtue of “doing what needs to be done” applies rigorously to our modern politics and thus “The Prince” still serves as a suitable political treatise in the 21st century. The subject of human nature has great emphasis in “The Prince”. Human beings are viewed as rational decision makers who try to maximize their self-interest. They are inclined to help whoever will give them the most benefits and by definition, may easily betray someone to whom they were previously loyal seeing a better opportunity. A large part of being a prince or a politician is being able to lead people, and therefore it is of utter importance in how to deal with their behavior.
Centuries of hierarchical government may have made people apathetic ... ... middle of paper ... ... due to its extreme stance on equality and freedom, is but a step away from either anarchy or tyranny. It seems to have worked in America, but there were several factors leading to its success. The state was founded on the premise of equality and its citizens had a strong desire to prevent the arbitrary rule of a tyrant, ensuring their active participation in government. The balance of power was also ensured by the ingenuity of the nation’s founders, who were away of the dangers of democracy and established a vast, complex system to prevent its abuse. While Tocqueville lauds the American experiment, even he acknowledges that it may not be repeated verbatim in other countries.
In contrast, Locke is much more in favor of giving the government only some power over its people. Locke also goes into great detail on how this can and should be accomplished, a contrast from Hobbes. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both argue for two very different types of government — Hobbes an absolute sovereignty, and Locke a much more limited government, outlined with checks and balances. Both men referred to a social contract between that of the sovereign and the people, in which the people agree amongst themselves to relinquish some of their freedoms for the security and safety of having a government. The key differences in the