Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu War Comparison
1 Kayla Short
English 2
12:30 PM Class
The way in which a leader governs his country can differ for different countries. Two polar opposites would be Lao-Tzu and Niccolo Machiavelli. They're both on opposite sides of the spectrum for their ideas on how a leader should govern. Lao-Tzu leans more towards a less intrusive government, while Machiavelli believes in powerful rulers. Some of their ideas are shown today in our society, some good and some bad. Starting with Machiavelli, he says “it is not reasonable for an armed man to obey an unarmed man willingly, nor that an unarmed man should be safe among armed servants” (Machiavelli 222). To him the most important thing for a leader to do is to understand war. He believes a leader should always be armed with weapons and a strong, forceful military. He saw that other great leaders before him were praised and honored for a strong military and believed that he should do what those great leaders before him did (Machiavelli 223). Today we honor our soldiers because they are overseas fighting for us, but I don't believe we are pro-war, not most of us anyways. I think that we have war because its necessary, not because we want it. On the other hand, Lao-Tzu believed that weapons only cause violence and any good man would detest them (Lao-Tzu 209). Lao-Tzu said that “Weapons are the tools of fear; a decent man will avoid them except in the direst necessity and, if compelled, will use them only with the utmost restraint” (Lao-Tzu 209). Lao-Tzu does not believe in war which completely contradicts Machiavelli's thoughts. He thought that for any act of violence you commit, even if it was in good spirit, will rebound and cause another act of violence (Lao-Tzu 208). Lao-Tzu also said that he could not be happy with winning after the killing of men (Lao-Tzu 209). Lao-Tzu prizes peace. I think not enough people in this
2
world want peace. There is always a dispute over something, whether it be between countries,
English 2
12:30 PM Class
The way in which a leader governs his country can differ for different countries. Two polar opposites would be Lao-Tzu and Niccolo Machiavelli. They're both on opposite sides of the spectrum for their ideas on how a leader should govern. Lao-Tzu leans more towards a less intrusive government, while Machiavelli believes in powerful rulers. Some of their ideas are shown today in our society, some good and some bad. Starting with Machiavelli, he says “it is not reasonable for an armed man to obey an unarmed man willingly, nor that an unarmed man should be safe among armed servants” (Machiavelli 222). To him the most important thing for a leader to do is to understand war. He believes a leader should always be armed with weapons and a strong, forceful military. He saw that other great leaders before him were praised and honored for a strong military and believed that he should do what those great leaders before him did (Machiavelli 223). Today we honor our soldiers because they are overseas fighting for us, but I don't believe we are pro-war, not most of us anyways. I think that we have war because its necessary, not because we want it. On the other hand, Lao-Tzu believed that weapons only cause violence and any good man would detest them (Lao-Tzu 209). Lao-Tzu said that “Weapons are the tools of fear; a decent man will avoid them except in the direst necessity and, if compelled, will use them only with the utmost restraint” (Lao-Tzu 209). Lao-Tzu does not believe in war which completely contradicts Machiavelli's thoughts. He thought that for any act of violence you commit, even if it was in good spirit, will rebound and cause another act of violence (Lao-Tzu 208). Lao-Tzu also said that he could not be happy with winning after the killing of men (Lao-Tzu 209). Lao-Tzu prizes peace. I think not enough people in this
2
world want peace. There is always a dispute over something, whether it be between countries,