Machiavelli vs. Lao-Tzu

Machiavelli vs. Lao-Tzu on how a government should be run.

These two philosophers and writers have very different views on how to govern a country. Lao-Tzu had a very non- violent and very passive perspective. Lao-tzu would rather please the public rather than force them to do something even if it would help them. He was all about pleasing the people and having the likable vote even if that meant doing nothing when they needed it. Whereas Machiavelli had a much more forceful view. He would rather push and push to get where he thought was right for the country. Unlike Lao-tzu, Machiavelli was not liked very much some even called him evil. For Machiavelli, force was the only way to run a country and the only way to keep from being overthrown.

In ways both of them had right and wrong points. To sit back is cowardly and being too forceful does nothing but start a mess. For Lao-Tzu letting people help themselves and seeing what will happen is one way to look at it. That’s the problem with being the perfect leader not everyone is going to be happy it’s hard to find the happy medium between helping and forcing when it comes to government. For Machiavelli helping people even when they don’t want help can seem forceful. He could’ve been trying to do what’s best for the people but they did not want help. That can seem controlling but there’s a fine line between them and he might have crossed that line but that’s all up to interpretation. There has been more good leaders that have died with infamy because the people didn’t want to be forced to do something even if it was better for them in the end. Machiavelli always for war and assembling the troops.