Philosophers have expressed themselves at length and eloquently on the ideal government and therefore on the ideal sovereign; This short essay will serve to compare two works on the topic, Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching and Machiavelli's The Prince. This article will analyze three main points of controversy between these authors. First, it will consider the author's views on the character of humanity and how people should be expected to act. Second, it will consider what kind of government and ruler is needed to run a nation populated by such a people. Finally, it will compare each author's thoughts on the defense of the nation and what this should require of both the sovereign and the people. Although each philosopher gives very different answers to the same questions, both writings are ultimately honest attempts to improve the lives of those who are governed. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayAny comparison of two philosophical works must begin with an introduction of the works in question. Within the pages of the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu's semi-poetic writings warn the reader of the dangers of ambition and materialism, while simultaneously extolling the character of man. Lao Tzu argues that people need only follow the Tao, the “way,” to find not only satisfaction in individual life but also peace and prosperity on a national level. He compares the Tao to a river that meanders through all of life, offering man the correct path, be he peasant or prince. The Tao Te Ching, along with several works by other early Chinese philosophers, served to successfully inform government policy in China for many centuries. A continent and a half away and nearly a millennium in the future, Niccolò Machiavelli had a very different approach to the dilemma of government. Instead of expecting or advocating that people adhere to any kind of ethical code, Machiavelli laments the sad state of humanity and constructs a method of government with this fact in mind. While he supports harsh and sometimes brutal policies, he argues that these are necessary to manage an undisciplined and opportunistic population. Machiavelli focuses his writings on specific examples of decisions that must be made by a ruler and why these decisions are necessary for a stable and successful nation to function. The main reason for the vast differences in the conclusions drawn by each of these philosophers can be traced to their divergent views on the state of humanity. Lao Tzu saw in every man the ability to follow a path of contentment open to all, without the need or desire to harm others. He argues that a society that chooses to follow the Tao would rise above the petty nature of man because the Tao is of the world. Lao Tzu writes: Throw away holiness and wisdom and people will be a hundred times happier. Throw away morality and justice and people will do the right thing. Throw away industry and profit and there will be no more thieves. (207)Lao Tzu explains that if man refuses to attribute to the world a fundamental truth such as religion or 'wisdom', man's happiness will not be unduly limited by these constructions. By refusing to impose an imperfect sense of universal justice, man grants himself the ability to choose the right path in fluid circumstances, as opposed to an inflexible and indifferent law. By refusing to overestimate the value of material goods and riches, man does not allow their lack to bring him unhappiness, and therefore would not want to take them away from others. According to Lao Tzu, if man opened himself to the Tao andIf he followed the path, his choices would bring fulfillment to himself and others. For Lao Tzu, the purpose of the government and the ruler (or the "Master", as Lao Tzu calls him to them) is to simply serve as an example to the people. This example would be lacking ambition, restrained and refusing to project one's will onto others. By making people content with what they have, leaders can ensure that a perfect society can be built, in which people want nothing; therefore, there is no conflict or interruption. Lao Tzu's teachings are those of the stability of the nation through individual inaction, expressed in the statement that "When there is no desire, / all things are at peace." (209). Without the desire for power, man would have no difficulty reaching the top. Without the desire for personal wealth, man would not cheat others to accumulate it. Without the desire to change the world, he is content to remain as he is. Lao Tzu implies that the greatest good for humanity is not individual success through struggle or conflict, since conflict leads to unhappiness for all, but contentment and peace achieved through acceptance of things as they are . When the individuals of a nation are at peace, the nation is at peace. Lao Tzu's teachings suggest that this peace would also extend to foreign powers. He argues that by refusing to antagonize another person or nation, nations can evade states of conflict. He states: There is no greater illusion than fear, there is no greater wrong than preparing to defend oneself, there is no greater misfortune than having an enemy. Lao Tzu claims that when man allows himself to fear another, be it a person or a nation, his thinking clouds and he sees an enemy where there is none. When he accumulates weapons to defend himself against this imaginary enemy, he will make them see an enemy in himself; he will have created his own enemy. Lao Tzu's teachings state that humility and the Tao preclude the existence of an enemy. Meanwhile, Machiavelli drew very different conclusions on similar issues, starting with his view of man as ambitious and opportunistic, always seeking to improve his lot in life, even at critical times. expenses of others. His statement about the character of man is this: They are ungrateful, fickle, pretenders and deceivers, avoiders of danger, greedy of gain; and while you work for their good they are completely yours, offering you their blood, their goods, their lives and their children, as I said before, when the danger is far away; but when they come near you they move away. While he expresses a slight contempt for the people due to their character, Machiavelli does not hold human nature against them; it is a fact that people are as they are and must be governed as such. Machiavelli bases his method of government on the management of such a fickle and unworthy humanity, with the knowledge that, on the whole, he cannot and does not want to understand the actions of the sovereign. Unlike Lao Tzu, Machiavelli argues that to trust people to do the right thing without help is to lay the foundation for failure as a nation. With such a people to govern, Machiavelli's ideal ruler is a hard man, quick to punish and slow to reward, ready to break his word when necessary but never to be considered untrustworthy. He must lead his people in every way possible, with laws, appearances and a strong dose of cunning. On the qualities of the sovereign, this passage says more: «[A] man who wants to make the vocation of being good at all times will go to ruin among many who are not good» (224). Machiavelli states that the prince must be seen as good to avoid being hated, but being good at all times will ruin the prince,.