American government in contrast to lao tzu and michiavelli

He claims that those who are most fit to rule are people who are limpid and fluid in their governing style. Lao Tzu, on the other hand, took a more individualistic, carefree approach, believing that a ruler will be respected and followed if he does not act powerfully and force rules and issues.

Unlike Tzu, Mill does not believe that denying liberties are wrong only because it can lead to a government having to control its people by force, he also believes it would lead to social decay of a different, and more dangerous kind.

This is because, if they were, their people would not be content with them, because they would come to feel deprived of the quality of life they were once accustomed to.

This is shown where he writes, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" Machiavelli believes that a government should be very structured, controlled, and powerful.

His writings describes how it is more important for a prince to be practical than moral. In light of this, I do believe that a government which is controlled by one who employs despicable tactics to maintain social cohesion is of use to note.

He makes it known that the only priorities of a prince are war, the institutions, and discipline. This makes the reader wonder if their political views were ever established and if so, how thriving it was. Whereas Machiavelli writes about the qualities a prince should have while instilling a totalitarian government, Lao-Tzu strongly believes that one cannot have total control, so everything should run its course.

His view of how a government should run and his unethical conduct are both early signs of dictatorship. Lao-Tzu also believes that the best leader is one that is loved, not feared.

He believes that the ruler should not act powerful, and because of this, he will be respected. Although similarities between Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu may be difficult to detect, their views are both very extreme.

He takes the stance that it is better for the prince to be feared than loved.

Lao-Tzu, Machiavelli, and the American Government

To Lao Tzu, this veil can be useful because it can better ensure that people will always revere their leader, especially if they rule subtly by keeping their methods of control a secret.

This section contains words approx. In addition, Machiavelli argues that a prince may have to be cunning and deceitful in order to maintain political power.

The writings of Machiavelli and Lao Tzu indicate that they would disagree most strongly on the concept of how a government should run.

He views the latter as "the greatest treasures" and if one has the three qualities, one will be a better person. This was done in order to successfully portray how their notions concerning these matters are strikingly similar.American Government in Contrast to Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli In comparing and contrasting the governmental philosophies of the great thinkers Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli, I have found a pleasant mix of both of their ideas would be the best for America today.

Summary: The writings of Machiavelli and Lao Tzu indicate that they would disagree most strongly on the concept of how a government should run. Machiavelli believed that in strong government control by a prince who acted more in terms of practicality and maintaining power than through moral.

Lao-Tzu, Machiavelli, and the American Government Lao-Tzu's "Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching" and Machiavelli's "The Qualities of a Prince" both have the ultimate goal of making better leaders. The tactics that each writer chooses to present as a guide for the leader are almost opposite of each other.

This essay compares the views of two authors in regard to leadership: Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu. Machiavelli was an historian in Italy, a diplomat, a philosopher, politician, a writer and humanist during the era of Renaissance. Lao-tzu and Machiavelli had a similar view of government. Both of the leader's main purpose was to better the structure of government.

Lao-tzu took a different approach to improving the infrastructure than Machiavelli. Lao-tzu used a Laissez-faire approach, which is a hands off approach, to government/5(3).

Niccolò Machiavelli Essay | Essay

Lao-Tzu, Machiavelli, and the American Government Lao-Tzu’s “Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching” and Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of a Prince” both have the ultimate goal of making better leaders.

Download
American government in contrast to lao tzu and michiavelli
Rated 5/5 based on 5 review