However, Lao Tzu believes that good rules fall into place because you let everything run its course. “If you want to be a good leader / You must learn to follow the Tao / Stop trying to control (Lao- Tzu, 29). A good ruler should let the people believe that they are leading themselves. Furthermore a good leader shares
To use the limited to pursue the unlimited is simply foolish. While Confucius argued that the only way to achieve a successful and meaningful life was to learn as much as possible in order to find the way, namely by studying everything around you. This is the biggest difference between the two philosophies. Confucius believed that above all else; emphasizing personal and governmental morality and correctness of social relationships, justice, and sincerity is the most important aspect of life. Chuang Tzu believed that how we perceive things are directly related to each of our separate pasts, or our “paths”.
Legalists believed that if the punishment was heavy and the law against their actions were strict, neither the powerful nor the weak would be able to escape the consequences. There are a lot of different aspects of Confucianism and Legalism that have opposing views; the role of government was one of them. In Confucianism, the government was designed to have a good ruler that the people respected and obeyed. The intent was to have the government benefit the people. Legalists on the other hand, believed that the people were there to serve the government and that the government was the main priority in the society.
Both of the philosophers have different perspectives on how to become the best leader. As both of the philosophers wrote an informative handbook, Lao-Tzu gives advice from an isolated view of a worldwide ruler, whereas, Machiavelli gives advice from a very personal experience. Both philosophers' perspectives wouldn’t benefit today’s world if the leader only has dichotomous thinking; though, because the world is not as perfect or chaotic, as these two philosophers described it, the two viewpoints of being a good leader mixed together would make the world a much better place. Machiavelli has a strong belief in having a government that is powerful and controlled. He lets us acknowledge that the only priorities of a prince are war, the foundations and the discipline.
Thatcherites were extremely traditional in their view of the constitution and political system. Modern conservatives now accept that constitutional reform is essential and that the political system needs a good deal of democratic renewal. Although tax cuts are part of the ‘Cameron agenda’ in the long run, the modern party accepts that tax cutting should not be part of a dogmatic ideology, but instead should only be undertaken when the economic conditions are favourable. In general Cameron’s Conservative party is more adaptable and pragmatic, whereas Thatcherism was a more fixed, dogma with fixed principles. The following points could be seen as ways in which the modern Conservative Party retains Thatcherite ideas.
Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu The way a government is run is dependent on one’s view of human nature. With the thought that human’s are inherently good, a relaxed and hands off approach to governing will surface, and the thought of human’s being inherently evil will result in a plethora of rules and constraints to give order to the state. It is the view of human nature that the leader will keep in high regards when deeming necessary courses of action. These two ends of the spectrum are displayed quite clearly through the tranquil, wishful thinking of Lao-Tzu and the much more realistic Machiavelli. Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli provide, in a sense, an instruction manual for those who are in the position to govern.
Confucianism: Confucius - “It is man that can make the Way great, and not the Way that can make man great.” (Moore-Bruder, 2008). Confucius is a philosopher of Confucianism, which I think is centered on. I think that this quote represents Confucius because he had ideas to better one personal life. He believe that a person could better their self’s through learning and serving others. He thought there was nothing better than wisdom that nature could not resist its power.
Although this is true, China was much more open and positive towards technological advancements, while Rome was more of a class-divided society, which in turn causes the general opinion on technology and advancements to be low. It should be noted that all of the documents herein are sourced from men who are wealthy and or government officials. In order to correctly state each society’s views, there should be a document sourced from a woman, a minority, and or a lower class citizen. For example, in Doc. 7, an upper-class roman philosopher and advisor to Emperor Nero, stated “...invented by someone with a mind that was nimble and sharp, but not great or elevated.” When referring to the hammer and the tongs, his point of view is that rather than making something meaningful, they use their sharp mind for making manual labor easier thus encouraging laziness.
What is more amazing is that Laozi and Plato had almost the same idea about the ideal society. In Laozi's theory, the right way to rule a country is to strengthen people's bodies so that they could do more work and simplify their minds so that they would content with their positions. In his mind the ideal citizens of a society is the humblest, the most unwise and ignorant ones, while the most intelligent ones should see to that. He believed if ordinary people always stay ignorant, there would be no riot and the rulers need not do anything to keep their authority. The whole world would be a better place.
Perhaps their discussion on the American War Policy would be much straight forward. The whole process of discussion would be much simpler because they would not be discussing themselves [on their own (Asia’s) own agendas, and spending 60% of their time and energy; as he explained in page-573] so much as they did in Manila. For choosing Manila, the basic purpose may be to find a suitable and neutral place for the same minded people to gather, also which should be in Asia. Asia with its multi religion, ethnicity and culture, bestows a difficult tusk to find a perfect place. The author describes in his essay, about the contribution of different Asia countries, such as Pakistan, Japan, Indonesia, Korea and many others, in the USA’s “War on Terror”.