Comparing and Contrasting Machiavelli and Lao Tsu

The kind of advice a leader receives is always varying, mostly in regards to the realities within a nation. It could be assumed it is all due to the times that the people live in that affects the opinions of the advisers of any authority in power at the time. It could also just be the personal attitudes and ideas inherent in such advisers that define the times in which a people would have to live.

As much as people want to believe their government is impartial. The attitude, behavior, and the actions of a government is almost entirely defined by the interpretations and personal views of the individuals in power. Today there are two gears of thought found in this world, and these trains of thought are what are mostly found to be people's points of view: the idealist view and the realist view of the world. The idealist view is the one where society is thought to be inherently good. The realist view exclaims society is thought to be inherently wayward and bad. Government, as it ought to function in the minds leaning on the idealist view, should not have to meddle in the behavior, economics, or the welfare of its citizenry. In some cases the government should and it has stayed out of certain key issues within the case of the United States, although the realist view demands the government has to, for the people are not able to be good by themselves and in recent US history it has done just that. These two ideals that were just described are actually what roughly define the Western and Eastern ideals of society. These views are prevalent in much of today as it was in the yore of history, and none best typifies these diametric opposing views than Machiavelli and Lao Tsu. Both of whom lived in completely different times and in completely different geographical areas of the world, but both had lived as adviser to kings, princes, and emperors and to write what has to be the most indicative views of their time and place which are still prevalent to this day.

Machiavelli lived in Italy during the Renaissance era as an aristocratic adviser whose position, place, and power were shifted along with the shifts of ruling people in power in Florence. Italy had comprised of many city-states that were at times erratic and inconsistent. Whereas Lao Tsu lived at a time where Confucius had lived as well, during the Chou dynasty, where the possibility of invasion was very present and real. There is also the issue of internal conflict amongst the nobles during that time as well.

There is something to be said in what a leader or a group of leaders fear and what they hope for as to what the community can achieve. In Machiavelli's view of mankind is that it can't be trusted and it's a "sorry lot", in addition, the leader should then in turn not feel obliged to trust or to honor promises he gives out since the people or community won't keep their promises either. Machiavelli says if you are seen as weak people will not respect you nor refrain from trying to do harm to you. This leads to, in Machiavelli's thinking, decent and fractioning within the prince's people and arise disorderly conduct from the masses. Such disorder is damaging, and gives reason and purpose to conspirator's to assassinate the leader, if the act so pleases the people. Whereas Lao Tsu maintains that people, if left alone, are inherently good and are able to prosper economically, become virtuous, and live a serene life without any obstruction. The people won't have designs against their "Master" or leader, as long as evil has no purpose or reason to oppose the individual in charge. And even if evil is still present, the evil designs of evil men are still easily side stepped. In some respect, there is something in Lao Tsu's ideal world that is worth aspiring to, that if people were truly inherently good, then maybe there would be no need for such a hostile stance parallel to Machiavelli's. Anyway, the reality is that people are both trustworthy and also devious in nature. To simply rely totally in the good will and intentions of people is both commendable as well as a very bad mistake. Nevertheless the fact that Lao Tsu's belief in people as being misplaced doesn't make Machiavelli's premeditative suspicion of people's nature all that more entirely correct either. It may be true that some people by nature are not to be trusted, because every person has the ability to make mistakes and feel both envy and jealousy, that it would only make sense to be attentive. Despite the previously mentioned fact, to live a life in a series of deceits and dubiety is equally troublesome, especially when governing a people. Because then there will always be an enmity between a ruler and his subjects, where one will rule without restraint in face of insubordination, and that alone can ensue rebellion in any people.

There is also the issue as to how punishment within a society should be utilized. In Machiavelli's view, punishment should be used to control the masses, in order to keep the crowd or mob in line. For if he were to be more merciful to transgressions and allow misconduct to continue, there would be disorder, murder, and plundering amongst the people, and it would do more damage than good for the greater community. To avoid this the leader must need to be cruel to only just the few that have done him some offense, be it a real or imagined crime, and for "if he must take someone's life [it must be with] proper justification and manifest cause" preferably. Machiavelli also assures that "for men forget more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony". To this end, being called cruel is unavoidable, aside from that, Machiavelli asserts, it is "safer to be feared than to be loved when one of the two is lacking." On the other hand, in Lao Tsu's view, leadership should not control nor litigate right from wrong amongst the people; specifically people are and will be good in nature if left alone. Nonetheless, if the peace were in jeopardy, that leadership or leader must defend the peace. Admittedly, there is a good point in Machiavelli's reasoning that punishment does induce a population to be more permissive to laws instituted by the state, but it doesn't entirely deter criminal behavior, actually as long as people believe they can get away with something, they will continue to do it. So in a way, there might be no end to unacceptable behavior and actions. Lao Tsu states, maintaining the goodness in mankind, people are not all in nature malicious and must be put to death. There is real cause for hesitancy in carrying out a punishment, in that the person being punished could very well be innocent. Plus, there are also circumstances to be considered, where people through hunger stole bread out of necessity.

And there is war, and how war should be perceived, conducted, and finalized. Machiavelli regards the activity and strategy of war as an absolute priority for any leader or leadership, and is the means to the "will to power". Also needed are the necessary induced order, unity, and fealty to the leader or leadership of a nation by projected and incited fear of that leader or leadership. Along with the respect of that military, a leader must be familiar with his home terrain in order to plan both offensive and defensive measures, and to know history of great states and great past leaders, for both their praises and their failings. Furthermore, with victories come the spoils, and the best way, as Machiavelli points out, to win the hearts and minds of the leadership's people and garner their popular approval is by not taking the spoils just for him. But to give it away to his officers and soldiers what once belonged to the enemy, specifically the soldiers following him into looting, sacking, and ransoming, in addition to combat. Lao Tsu, in his trail of thought, states that a leader or leadership must observe all of his or her home, never leaving it, possibly alluding to being familiarized with their native terrain so as to formulate strategy. Leaving aside, it then instructs that weapons are to be detested for "a decent man will avoid them", and have restraint and mercy to both enemy and to the citizenry to which military action may be taken against only to defend the peace. Lao Tsu affirms peace should be of the highest value to a leader and without it, how could a leader be content? Lao Tsu conjointly mentions that a leader should not fear the unknown, that the enemy is very much mortal and may very well be not evil in nature - that the enemy is a human being. To go further, Lao Tsu instructs that a leader should not relish in another's death, but be humble for it's a time to be in sorrow for the intended target of attack. There should be no pride in tallying additional suffering into this world, for war should always be a last resort. Obviously, there is similarity in terms of advised preparations for war from both Machiavelli and Lao Tsu that a good leader should know his own backyard, although it is where the similarities end. Machiavelli instructs a leader to actually maintain and unify his troops through use of fear and out of the victory of war; he rewards them with the spoils of the defeated, thus assuring further allegiance from them. The actions taken by such a leader I have come to conclude are unjust and negate the equal and just treatment, and dignity of the defeated, and deny them due process as human beings. Whereas Lao Tsu stresses that the peace of a society should be the forefront in the concerns of any leader, and that the weapons used in war should be detested and avoided if possible. Unless the peace in itself is in danger of being destroyed or has been destroyed is when war, being the last resort, should be used. And as such, there should be no pleasure taken in taking another's life. This is right to think as such, where human suffering as a result of not only military casualties but also collateral non-military casualties, is always an unavoidable byproduct of war. And if an alternative approach could be used to resolve a situation without the need of war, the better off both opposing parties will be and any other possible potential unintended third parties caught in the crossfire.

And now finally the subject of generosity and of giving to the people as it should be applied in the views of Machiavelli and Lao Tsu. Machiavelli points out that the act of generosity is worth nothing and would only end in ruin and destruction for a leader who engages in it. It does nothing but bring to much offense to those who were not shown any generosity and only a few that do receive the generosity are ever thankful for such a display. With generosity comes an increasing drain on funds, as you'll have to continue to front that kind of reputation. Eventually a leader, after continuously showing such lavish display of generosity in order to avoid being despised by so many, will have to begin raising higher taxes to maintain his lavish display, thus he'll be more despised. So it is only far better to be considered a miser and cheap from the very start, where being cheap could go a long way from never becoming a tax burden on the community. This also allows for a leader to pursue ventures, be it military campaign or defense, without ever becoming a burden to his people because he is only taking from out of his own funds. But Machiavelli also points out that if you have to be generous, don't let anyone know that you are. In Lao Tsu's thinking, this isn't really too far from the mark, as he prescribes that people should not get any kind of subsidies in order to prevent people from being less self-reliant. In a way, Machiavelli and Lao Tsu are in agreement, by the very fact of the act of giving is to be prohibited in the leaderships activities. Although the reasons for this dictate could very well be for different reasons, be they for people's benefit or the benefit of the ruler. Notwithstanding, the precept in some cases is a correct one, for people will from time to time try to take advantage of the system, but it doesn't make it less legitimate. People do need help from time to time, especially during disasters, where such help is decidedly needed.

It is my own opinion that both Machiavelli and Lao Tsu are right in certain issues, but one or the other or both are wrong on other issues. The kind of distrust and instituted un-redeemable behavior Machiavelli promotes is both cruel and damaging, in that the activity invites and makes pervasive an unjust state of governance. Whereas Lao Tsu holds that a leader should be without deceit and cruel cunning, where a leader can be trusted, focused, centered, and noble, among other characteristics deemed good in many people's minds. Which is a very admirable ideal of governance, but almost too far high or surreal a goal for a single man or woman to achieve fully, but is still worth trying to acquire. Punishment was also an issue that I've tended to agree with Machiavelli on somewhat, but maintained Lao Tsu's reasoning that some men or women may be innocent or doing acts with no real malicious intent other than to survive. Punishment shouldn't have to be used as a crude way to keep people in line, but sometimes some rules are truly needed to set some things to right. War was also another topic found between Machiavelli and Lao Tsu, where the treatment of war as a subject that was very much adverse to the other. Machiavelli alleged that in war, you must show a dark side, and demand obedience from all your men, and make your enemies suffer even more after defeat, especially if it benefited you. Unlike Lao Tsu attested that war shouldn't be an immediate option but rather a last resort, and something to dread, as it caused numerous amounts of suffering and loss in both victory and in defeat. Lao Tsu also stipulated that to always be prepared for war was something that shouldn't take place, peace must prevail and truth be seen through amongst the fog. As for the nature of people, it cannot be helped that there will always be a few good and bad in any group, and is a reality that must come to be accepted. To simply classify only one type of people in general, be it good or bad, as truly good or truly evil is both wrong and a mistake, as people could not and have never been consistent to or conforming to a set type.

Sources:

• "Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching", Lao-Tsu, A World of Ideas, Lee A. Jacobus, 2006
• "The Qualities of a Prince", Niccolo Machiavelli, A World of Ideas, Lee A. Jacobus, 2006