Machiavelli Vs Lao-Tzu

Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) was a governmental philosopher as rise as astatesmen during the time of the spiritual rebirth. He is most far-famed for writing his policy-makingviews in The Prince (1513), which has become an important part of sophisticated politicalphilosophy. The Prince offers advice to the monarch in order to keep himself in power.His recommendations be polices that discourage mass political activism by channelingthe concourse around him to manipulation their energies for private pursuits. Machiavelli wanted toinfluence the monarch by showing him that he can better keep his power byjudiciously apply violence, understanding and respecting his subjects private propertyand traditions, and by promoting materialistic prosperity.Machieavelli believed that a political lifespan is not governed by a set of moralsor a religious absolute. The monarch can be excused sometimes for using acts of violenceor deception for a means, which would not be ethical if he were a civilian. The Princewas written at the height of the Renaissance when intense political conflict between thedominant cities and states of Florence, Milan, Venice, the Papacy, France, Spain as wellas the Holy Empire. This incendiary conflict ended in grand political intrigue, violenceand blackmail to which Machievelli concluded with a plea for whizz in Italy as well as anend to foreign involvement.The capacious differences between Niccolo Machieavelli and Chinese TaoistPhilosopher, Lao-Tzu, is their dogmas on how a government should be enumeration. Machieavellirefers to what a prince should have as he places a totalitarian government. He believedgovernments should be very structured and controlled as well as powerful. Lao- Tzbelief is that one person cannot have total control and they should let everything run itscourse. Machievelli argued in his book that, Discourses on the First Ten Books of TitusLivius that a republic would, be strengthened by their conflicts if they engage in openpolitical participations and debates.Machieavellis, pragmatic view of ethics and politics is a Prince shouldbe more than practical than moral. A prince must learn to be cunning and duplicitous to maintainhis power. He believed it is more important for a prince to be feared than love by hispeople. This is in direct contrast to Lao-Tzus belief in living life with goodness andrespect to others. He did not keep a guide to his views like Machieavelli, because hewanted his philosophy to be a natural way a human being should live. He believed apersons behavior in his or her life should be influenced by their instincts and conscience.Lao-Tzu believed that humans as well as the man are governed byunseen forbiddenside forces. The key to ones truth and freedom is simplicity. Heencouraged followers to seek out and to understand the laws of nature, to build up poweramong themselves, as well as to utilize that power to lead their life with love withoutforce. The differences are in t ime clear as how these philosophers are remembered.Machieavellis views of ethics and politics, lead people to misinterpret these views as todescribe anyone who deceptively manipulates people in an opportunistic way. I.E.Machieavellian.Lao-Tzu is said to have went off on water buffalo to the desert, saddenedby the evils of man. It is said that when he arrived at the gate of the Great Wall of China,where he was persuaded by the gatekeeper to record his principals of philosophy. This recording became the ancient Chinese textbook Eighty-one sayings of the Tao-Te-Ching.-Works Cited-http//books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=oty2JfReC3cC&oi=fnd&pg=PR14&sig=XiQAr4hiJRUoIy5ZSvNRW_4fhXg&dq=%22Grint%22+%22leaders+Classical,+Contemporary,+and+Critical+Approaches%22+PPR11,M1 Leadership Classical, contemporary, and critical approaches By Keith Grint Published 1997 Oxford UniversityPress.