Lao-Tzu vs Machiavelli

371 Words2 Pages
Lao-Tzu vs. Machiavelli Lao-Tzu and Niccolò Machiavelli have two very different views on the way a country should be governed. However Lao-Tzu’s method is superior to Machiavelli for a number of reasons. Neither of the two is perfect but with Lao-Tzu’s method, the good outweighs the bad. The first of these reasons is that it makes people feel like they are in control. If people do not realized they are being governed, and feel like they are governing themselves the best will come out. This form of government gives people a chance to show that they are generally good by nature, and everyone can live together without fighting. Also, if people gave up material things, the world would be a better place. If the world today wasn’t so caught up with having the next hot item, or how they looked, then people would have more time to better themselves, and it would create a more equal opportunity for everybody. However, one flaw in Lao-Tzu’s government is the lack of interaction with other countries. Imports and exports are a huge part of what makes a country run smoothly, and if a country keeps to itself it would be impossible to bring in outside products. While this is not a very good idea, it is better than Machiavelli’s method of government. It is better to give up imports and exports, rather than wanting to go to war with other countries. It puts people of the country at risk when the government is so open and willing to go to war. One thing that is good with Machiavelli’s government is the idea that, “it is better to be feared than loved”. If a leader is just loved that is good but the people will not follow him, which means there is no government at all. A leader who is feared may not be the people’s favorite but at least he will have his orders followed. Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli have two very different views on government, but Lao-Tzu’s method is the superior
Open Document