Government is the belief that individuals need an organized allocation of authority to protect their wellbeing. Throughout history the forms of government have changed from Monarchies, Chieftains, to Popes/ Arch Bishops to modern Politics. Lao-Tzu’s views from the Tao-te Ching possess a thought that the people need a leader who is kind and gentle, but firm and wise, whereas Machiavelli describes in “The Prince” that a leader should strive to take complete control of power and wield is fiercely, things will turn out alright in the end. The two differ incredibly, but could also agree on many issues and matters. Lao-Tzu starts with how to treat the common people, “by over esteeming men, you make the people powerless” section 3. “If a leader
…show more content…
Low Sui Pheng adds to her article that “Tao-te Ching relates to the idea that the people should be the central focus of a leader.” Loa-Tzu has that area fully covered, whereas Machiavelli has the …show more content…
Machiavelli is set in the ideals that a good ‘prince’ should be most knowledgeable in the ways of the military, so that he can communicate well with the militia and wield the militia to his advantage to gain power. He also expresses that “a prince should gain power and hold onto it, so as not to lose it.” Lines 13-14. Marcia Colish shares a document of “Liberty in Machiavelli” where there I a mention of how the government should be the head of every family, similar to communist ideals, where the government is the living breath of everyone’s daily lives, making the idea of a new government practically impossible. Lao-Tzu’s view of not believing in any formal form of government is more realistic after reading “The world is scared- it can’t be improved” section 29. Ken McCormick shares an eastern economic journal of the views of some ancient leaders, Lao-Tzu’s is one of them, and how his ideals line with the laws of Laissez-faire, to let the people do as they please within a spectrum of the ideal that people in general will be punished for wrong doings. Lao-Tzu also expresses that a good leader is one that is wise, and the people willing to learn, but the leader is also not feared, and refrains from doing unnecessary
Low Sui Pheng adds to her article that “Tao-te Ching relates to the idea that the people should be the central focus of a leader.” Loa-Tzu has that area fully covered, whereas Machiavelli has the …show more content…
Machiavelli is set in the ideals that a good ‘prince’ should be most knowledgeable in the ways of the military, so that he can communicate well with the militia and wield the militia to his advantage to gain power. He also expresses that “a prince should gain power and hold onto it, so as not to lose it.” Lines 13-14. Marcia Colish shares a document of “Liberty in Machiavelli” where there I a mention of how the government should be the head of every family, similar to communist ideals, where the government is the living breath of everyone’s daily lives, making the idea of a new government practically impossible. Lao-Tzu’s view of not believing in any formal form of government is more realistic after reading “The world is scared- it can’t be improved” section 29. Ken McCormick shares an eastern economic journal of the views of some ancient leaders, Lao-Tzu’s is one of them, and how his ideals line with the laws of Laissez-faire, to let the people do as they please within a spectrum of the ideal that people in general will be punished for wrong doings. Lao-Tzu also expresses that a good leader is one that is wise, and the people willing to learn, but the leader is also not feared, and refrains from doing unnecessary