Lao-Tzu Vs Machiavelli

Political Stand-off

Both Lao-tzu and Machiavelli seem to have a clear-cut view on how they believe the government should run. In some ways, both men have very similar ideas; more often, though, they couldn't be more opposed. A few similarities brought forth are that people in power must not strive to make everyone happy, nor must they be considered unmerciful and they should avoid being despised. The final view they both share is that they believe if the common people think they are happy, then whomever is in power will not fear for their power. However, it seems for each similarity they have, several oppositions occur in their place. From the way they believe how a leader should govern, especially in times of war, to the way that they feel about simple lies shows us how different Lao-tzu and Machiavelli's opinions really are.
One of the ideas they stressed was that you cannot make everyone happy.
If you attempt to, you invite uprisings and chaos. They go on to say, though, that you must be merciful to the people. Lao-tzu speaks of being merciful toward most anything the people might do; Machiavelli simply states that you should appear merciful even if you aren't always merciful. [...practicing them at all times is harmful...appearing to have them is uesful...merciful, faithful, humane...but...] summarizes Machiavelli's idea on mercy into a nice little package, whereas Lao-tzu just reiterates that you should be tolerant and leave the people to themselves. Each man agreed that the leader must avoid being despised. If a leader became despised, he would fall from power quickly because the people would rebel and demand a new leader in his
place.

Both have different ideas on how a leader should be seen: Lao-tzu's leader should not draw attention to himself and that he shouldn't force his will on others. Machiavelli's leader should be feared and are able to do what they want, within reason. They also disagreed over war. Lao-tzu's felt that [weapons are a tool of violence...] and if they must go to war, it must only be on defense, not to gain more things for themselves, and they should keep in mind that the people they are fighting are also human beings. Machiavelli encouraged the opposite of this and states that the Prince [...must not have any...profession but war...] and that it was ok to go to war, because then you had other people's money to spend to keep your own people happy. A final disagreement they defined was wether it was ok or not to lie. Lao-tzu believes that the Master should not impose her will upon other, be truthful, and work for the betterment of people as a whole; while Machiavelli believes that breaking your word is ok as long as you have good reason and it will help the people believe that issues are being resolved and they are being ruled correctly.

It seems to me that the ultimate purpose of government varies between the two. Lao-tzu's ideal government seems to have the Master in an inactive leadership role, but mostly working toward the common good of her people. However, Machiavelli's ideal government seems to be one with the Prince in a definite leadership role; especially in times where war is either needed or brought upon the people. To me, both forms of government have their good points and bad points, but I would rather live in a Machiavellian society, simply because Lao-tzu believes in a non-materialistic people, which is certainly not what most people in the present would like to live by.