Lao Tzu & Machiavelli

500 Words2 Pages
Lao Tzu & Machiavelli Lao Tzu and Machiavelli had contradicting views on what they believe being a leader is about. Lao Tzu believes there is no need for violence or being armed as expressed in Article 31. He specifically said that weapons should not be allowed except in very special circumstances. On the contrary, Machiavelli praises Philopoemon, Prince of the Acheans, for always thinking of possible war strategies, should the occasion arise. Lao Tzu and Machiavelli disagree on some other beliefs. In Article 67, Lao Tzu states that he believes in three traits of leaderships; simplicity, compassion, and patience. Machiavelli however writes a prince “…needs to appear to be merciful, faithful, humane, forthright, religious…” (49), but to actually practice all the above traits at all times would be harmful to a prince’s power. Reading both views of such a highly discussed topic tugs your own view. While I understand the views of both men, I believe that Machiavelli’s perspective is more prevalent and useful in the world today. Machiavelli rights that a leader needs to show his prowess and confidence in his decisions which helps make people want to follow the leader. He writes with a more realistic but cynical point of view. Lao Tzu writes from the side that all humans are inherently good. Lao Tzu trusts all people to do the right thing and says not to force any expectations into people as that will cause them only to backlash. Lau Tzo’s point of view blatantly contradicts that of Machiavelli’s point of view when in Article 46 he says that fear is only an illusion. However as a society we fear the smallest things making them larger than they are. Any person’s sarcastic threat to another could be overheard by a bystander now a days and we will be thrown into a whirlwind of police cars, ambulances, and people screaming. In Article 57, Lao Tzu states that he
Open Document