Machiavelli Lao-Tzu Essay Example for Free

Machiavelli Lao-Tzu EssayLao-tzu was an ancient Chinese philosopher from 6th century BC, the author of Tao-te Ching, and Machiavelli was an Italian philosopher who lived 2000 long time after Lao-tzus time, author of Prince. They are both philosophers but ache totally different perspective on how to be a good leader. While both philosophers writing is instructive. Lao-tzus advice issues from detached keep an eye on of a frequent ruler Machiavellis advice is very personal perhaps de cosmosding.Both philosophers idea will none work for todays world, because that new world is not as perfect as Lao-tzu described in Tao-te Ching, and not as higgledy-piggledy as Machiavelli illustrated in Prince. Perhaps Lao-tzu and Machivellis political system will not work for todays world, but around of their philosophies are still exist in some of modern issues. One of those issues is munition control, which has become a dividing line in America.Lao-tzu advised in Tao-te Ching weapon are th e tools of violence all decent man detest them. Weapon are the tools of fear a decent man will avoid them eject in the direst necessity and, if compelled, will use them nevertheless with the utmost restraint. On the other hand Machiavelli wrote in Prince, Francesco Sforza became Duke of Milan from being a private citizen because he was armed his sons, since they avoided the inconveniences of ordnance, became private citizens after having been duke.For, among the other bad effects it causes, being disarmed makes you despised this is one of those infamies a prince should guard himself against (page 36) in which he pointed out that taking arms from a people can make a difference between a prince and a citizen. To ordnance control activists, the issue is about crime and the regulation of the weapons used to commit crimes. In their opinion, observing citizens should have no need for guns, which is similar to Lao-tzus idea.However in opposite, the nations powerful gun lobby, the Na tional Rifle Association, argues that gun control is a violation of freedom and rights to protect themselves, which correspond to Machiavellis idea. I think that if American judicature take either sides, will end up in total chaos. Gun control, which means law-abiding citizens lose their right to protect themselves, and outlaw, will be the and one legally own firearm. barely if in that respect are totally no gun control, a five year old boy can bring a gun to school, and shoot at teacher as he please, regular thought that he doesnt know better.Machiavelli wrote A prince, therefore, must not have any other inclination nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war, its discipline because that is the only profession which befits one who commands He discussed that a Princes duty is war and only war. This lead to the second issue, war, which existed as long as the existence of tender kind, as I am writing this essay there are still wars going on all o ver the world. According to Machiavelli war should be the only thing on a princes mind, because if a prince give more thought to personal luxuries than war he could lose his state and position.Lao-tzu states in Tao-te Ching The master doesnt try to be powerful thus he is rightfully powerful. The ordinary man keeps reaching for power thus he never has enough. I have to disaccord with both philosophers idea, because I think that war can be looked at as a human evolution, in the ancient world war was fought for land and freedom. In modern world, war was fought for gross of economy. warfare is something that just happens, its not necessary and cant be avoided.Look into American History From Civil contend to Vietnam War to Desert Storm, which cost billions dollars and millions lives, will the war ever end? We all know, the answer is no. As long as human lives, the war will never end. Perhaps Lao-tzu and Machiavellis political view is totally opposite, at the end they all have a commo n goal is to create an exemplar political system. The constitution among other things would not allow that sort of government today. The times have rebelliously changed, but the need for the higher forms of thinking amongst society has not.