Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu War Assessment
The english language 2
12: 30 PM Class
The way a leader affects his nation can differ for different countries. Two polar opposites would be Lao-Tzu and Niccolo Machiavelli. They're both on reverse sides with the spectrum for their ideas on how a leader should govern. Lao-Tzu leans more towards a less intrusive government, although Machiavelli believes in powerful rulers. Some of their way of doing something is shown today in our contemporary society, some good and some bad.
Starting with Machiavelli, he says " it is not fair for an armed guy to comply with an disarmed man voluntarily, nor that an unarmed gentleman should be secure among provided servants” (Machiavelli 222). To him the most important thing for any leader to accomplish is to understand war. This individual believes an innovator should always be armed with weapons and a strong, powerful military. This individual saw that other great leaders before him were praised and honored for the strong military and presumed that this individual should do what those great leaders before him do (Machiavelli 223). Today all of us honor each of our soldiers because they are overseas struggling for us, but I may believe we could pro-war, not really most of us anyhow. I think that we get war because its important, not since we want this.
On the other hand, Lao-Tzu presumed that weaponry only cause violence and any good gentleman would hate them (Lao-Tzu 209). Lao-Tzu said that " Weapons will be the tools of fear; a good man will avoid them besides in the direst necessity and, if motivated, will use them only with all the utmost restraint” (Lao-Tzu 209). Lao-Tzu will not believe in conflict which totally contradicts Machiavelli's thoughts. This individual thought that for almost any act of violence you commit, regardless if it was in good soul, will rebound and cause another action of assault (Lao-Tzu 208). Lao-Tzu as well said that this individual could not be pleased with winning following your killing of men (Lao-Tzu 209). Lao-Tzu prizes tranquility. I think not enough people in this 2
universe want peace. There is always a dispute above something, whether it is between countries, cities, and even two people. Individuals are never in peace.
Another sort of how Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu differ is their ideas on how much a leader should interfere with the people and what their duties had been as commanders. Lao-Tzu claims that " Governing a large country is like frying a tiny fish. You spoil it with too much poking” (Lao-Tzu 212). He thinks the government must not be so associated with the people, we ought to just let them be. In respect to Lao-Tzu, the more you try to help people the significantly less self-reliant they will be (Lao-Tzu 211). I see this everyday in the usa. The government offers people wellbeing money, foodstuff stamps, etc ., but these people now rely on that aiding hand. That they don't want to work for their money any more because they've found it truly is easier to simply collect cost-free money on a monthly basis. Although I actually do believe there are people who genuinely need the governments assistance, I actually also think that if you provide them with too much they become reliant upon that assistance, like Lao-Tzu said. This individual also says that this individual knows he cannot control everything, this individual does what he must do and does not try to control the people (Lao-Tzu 208). I do believe many you need to grasp this concept better inside their everyday life. There are numerous things we all cannot modify, yet we still make an effort so hard.
Machiavelli's thoughts on what a role is really as leader is very different from Lao-Tzu's. He believes that a leader should do whatever it takes to be in control of his people, even if which means breaking his promises to individuals. He says that leaders with accomplished many things did not worry about keeping guarantees, in the end they exceed the leaders whom are based on trustworthiness (Machiavelli 229). This thought is very evident in today's world. Politicians, celebs, etc . don't care that they are lying because after the lie they're still a politician or a superstar and likely ended up a lot better than they were just before. Also opposing Lao-Tzu's thoughts, Machiavelli perceives himself as a higher list than...