Niccol Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu - Essay Example

Niccolo Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu Machiavelli in his most famous writing the prince presents a distinctive point of view. He gives straight positions on how the government should function and how the citizens should respond. He depicts the qualities of the prince in a clear manner stating the consequences of not following these qualities. This point of view from Machiavelli is quite different from Lao Tzu’s in his writing thoughts from the Tao-te Ching. In their writings, they hold opposing perspectives on subjects like functions of government, character of a leader, and human nature and the society around them. Both Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu are writing about government and give opinion in ways that they feel people should be governed. Even though they both composed their writings long ago, some of the counsel given is still applicable in today’s modern world. This paper therefore, seeks to explain how their point of view influenced their writings in terms of the responsibilities between the leader and the citizens. It also focuses on giving the distinctive qualities the leaders and citizens should have basing on both Machiavelli’s and Lao-Tzu’s writings. Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu both present their perspectives differently and intelligently. On the topic of characters of a leader, Machiavelli presents well-built judgments as to in which way a ruler should act when in power. He notes down about whether it is great to be feared or loved, eventually arriving to a close that a leader must be dreaded in order to govern his people. This brings about the opinion that the leader loved by the citizens is not working as expected. Machiavelli gives strong convictions in his writing of the prince who he gives the need to control. He recommends a stern leader to be stern, maintaining and obtaining power. In his presentation, he depicts a power hungry leader. He evidently employs the argumentation rhetorical strategy to depict the qualities of the prince. This he expects the citizens to be loyal to. He explains responsibility, bad and good reputations, and being well informed in history and military. This is among the instances that he depicts a positive attitude towards the essential goodness of the citizens. He has a strong stand that a leader desires to be alleged to be powerful and strong. Machiavelli presents a leadership style in which the leader takes credit for all good in the government. He presents the argument that it is essential to not appear feeble to others, particularly the people. This brings clearly how his point of view shades his understanding of the relationship between government and the people. The prince does not trust his people, and his role is evidently, a dictator. Lao-Tzu’s view on the qualities of a leader is exceptionally dissimilar to that of Machiavelli’s. His suggestion of a leader is moral, modest and compassionate. He insists that a leader ought to be treasured by his citizens. This presents the idea that Machiavelli has positive attitude towards the essential goodness of the citizens. There is a complete assumption that the citizens will show this goodness in return. In the prince Niccolo employs political rhetoric. This is a rhetorical strategy used to convince an individual to adopt a viewpoint. He gives an exact detail of all the things the prince must do in order to be successful. This type of rhetorical strategies is similar to Socrates. By this, Machiavelli warns about political rhetoric and at the same time employs it to his advantage. In another instance, he warns about flattery and at the same time employs it to refer to the Medicis. Lao Tzu, on the other hand, employs religious rhetoric that are based on the beliefs of the Tao. This is present when he refers to the Tao in some instances. The Tao explains that when an individual does nothing every other thing falls into place. In an example, in the Tao-te Ching Lao-tzu affirms that if a leader wants to be a remarkable then they must learn to pursue the Tao, desist from trying to control, let go of permanent concepts and plans and the world will rule itself Government is the fundamental influence of a country, which openly affects the public since it gives key securities. This presents the topic of how directly concerned should the administration be in the individual lives of society. Machiavelli and Lao-tzu give similar opinions on how government should rule though in different ways. There are not many ways in which they are alike, but cover very contrary ideas and views of government. Lao-Tzu’s perspective is government should not encompass maximum power over the people. He feels as though citizens will feel happier when they know less that they are governed. He explains the government as a master in charge of the citizens. Lao-tzu explains bases his argument on nature that when things happen according to the prospects of nature, then there is no need for the leader to make empty promises. Lao-tzu reassures that the master observes things as they are without ant controlling traits. This means that the master lets things happen, as they are and does not interfere. From this, it is clear that the relationship between the citizens and the government is sound and no one interferes with the other. Lao-tzu takes into reflection the people and everything they can do on their own, not how they can do it for the leader. The leader delivers on their tasks and does not boast on him. This explains that when this is practiced the citizens will believe they have completed the tasks on their own and be conceited. Lao-tzu supposes citizens will act on the right way because possession and wealth of lavish material belongings are of no concern. Lao-Tzu gives an assumptive attitude that the citizens are not and cannot be rebellious. In a way let go of preferred possessions rather than wants. As Lao-tzu perceives it when an individual has no other than his fellow citizen he will not yearn to acquire what he does not. This assumption therefore presents the idea that theft will be nonexistent (Jacobus & Downs 225). Lao-tzu does not have a strong conviction in the employ of weapons and man should have no enemies. This aspect brings into focus that Lao-Tzu employs arguments from analogy as his rhetoric strategy. This point of view totally differs with Machiavelli who in his writings believed violence and war were a fundamental part of the relationship between the government and the citizens. In Machiavelli’s work, the traits of a Prince, we are given a detailed description of what a leader ought to do to efficiently pilot his country. Machiavelli makes clear that, since leadership is known to be a position of authority, war and violence are the only professions, which profit the leader of a state. He further continues to say that, in order for peace to prevail, a leader should constantly be geared up for war. Machiavelli talks about a several examples of fictions, past and present crop of military leaders who lead peaceful states. The callousness of the leader portrayed in qualities would near certainly cause opposition among the citizens of the peaceful country (Jacobus & Downs 203). Machiavelli presents several central points to bring up in his argument on the inevitability of military competence. This he asserts through though experiments as a rhetorical strategy. A leader must study the nature of the land that he is destined to defend. Machiavelli probably argues this since the Medicis were not conscious of the benefit that the Spanish and French were gaining by dominating the northern, mountainous regions of Italy (Jacobus & Downs 210). Machiavelli deems that superior laws trail obviously from a strong military. This was unlike to Lao-Tzu’s ideologies, which considered a peaceful country with no wars because citizens are contented. Machiavelli’s legendary declaration that the existence of competent military forces signifies the presence of sound laws depicts the connection linking developing countries and war in the prince. Machiavelli invalidates the conventional understanding of war as a compulsory, but not perfect, constituent of the progress of states, and in its place stresses that successful war is the very basis upon which all states are built. Machiavelli, on the other hand, identifies virtues as traits that are commended by others. These include qualities like piety, generosity and compassion. He disputes that a prince should always strive to emerge as virtuous, but that acting righteously for virtue’s account can attest to be damaging to the principality. A prince should not necessarily shun vices such as dishonesty and cruelty if initiating them will do well to the state. Machiavelli shares an account of upholding virtues with Lao-Tzu but he continues to set terms differently. He insists that the leader or the government should not be very nice for the sake of virtues and should be ready to compromise these virtues for the god of the state. In conclusion, Lao-Tzu in his words from the thoughts from the Tao te-Ching presents views of an ideal state, which is rather unachievable in modern times. He bases his argument that a government that does not interfere with the individual live of the citizens prospers. This means that the government does not take direct action to the citizens but rather focuses on giving better lives to these citizens. Lao-Tzu presents a situation that the government rules according to the forces of nature. This is not as practical as Machiavelli describes a government that has total control of the citizens. Niccolo presents the idea that a prosperous government is one, which considers war and violence to fortify how it rules. This can be attributed to his personal point of view and situation. The Medicis did not properly govern Italy by then. This aspect attributes in totality the thoughts that Machiavelli presents in his writing of the prince. Lao-Tzu presents a quiet relationship between the government and the citizens. Machiavelli, on the other hand, depicts a struggled relationship that requires compromise. Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu are two different writers of different times but their works share deep similarity that can describe the relationship between citizens and the government. This attribute makes them unique, special and the best examples one can use to describe this relationship. Work cited Jacobus, Lee A., & Downs, Douglas. World of Ideas, 9th Ed. + I-cite. Bedford/st Martins, 2013.print Read More