Difference Between Lao Tzu And Machiavelli

Lao-Tzu was an ancient Chinese philosopher during the 6th century. Conversely, Machiavelli was an Italian historian, author, diplomat, philosopher, and politician that lived almost two thousand years later during the Renaissance. Although both are from completely different times and cultures; neither would disagree that leadership is essential in the success or failure of society. After all, at its simplistic core government is just a hierarchy of leadership that exist to serve its fellow citizens. When utilized correctly, government and effective leadership can be the difference between societal paradise and peril. The question then in lies what is the correct way. This is the question in which these authors diverging opinions and philosophies are strongly rooted. Additionally this is the question that is independent and based on one factor, each author’s view of human nature.
This is because he, along with the vast majority of modern leaders, tends to picture and idealize fantasy nations that have never been seen or known. In his eyes the manner in which people live is distant from the way that they must live, at least in order to meet the manufactured social expectations. Therefore, it is vital for leaders who hold out hope to remain effective and in power to learn when and how to apply deceptive and sometimes forceful methods in accordance to necessity.

When compared to Machiavelli, Lao-Tzu's views are quite different, he believes that there exist a model system that a ruler should use to govern; wherein, the government should ideally have minimum involvement in the lives of its