The question of how someone should govern anybody has been a philosophical question that has existed over thousands of years. Machiavelli was an aristocrat that grew in a time where power was needed so that Italy could save itself from the influences of Spain and France; which heavily influenced his ideals of using power to obtain anything needed and using fear to withheld it. Lao Tzu on the other hand, was a man of enlightenment; who believed that possessions such as power, dominance, and wealth, were not as valuable or necessary as assets and should even be deemed evil by the enlightened man. To govern with an “Iron Fist” or to govern with a steady hand that only shows the way but does not enforce it, this was the main question. Lao Tzu and Machiavelli are almost opposites of one another in terms of needs and wants with Lao Tzu being a person who believed that the more force that was used, the less one would obtain; whereas, Machiavelli was a man who believed that power should be used to obtain anything, by any means necessary including those achieved by immoral conduct. Lao Tzu believed that one needed to govern in moderation, tossing aside items that could cause ambition, and ruling in which the people found their own happiness and was not imposed on them what are moral conducts. He strongly advocated that people needed to toss aside petty differences and constantly advocated in fair treatment. He believed that “The Master leads by emptying people’s minds and filling their cores” (Lao Tzu 2) which meant that he believed “The Master” should lead by clearing people of things they want, and to teach people to enjoy what is presented to them already. This is also supported when Lao Tzu says, “And even though the next country is so close that people can hear its roosters crowing and its dogs barking, they are content to die of old age without ever having gone to see it,” (Lao Tzu 60) which translates to saying people should be content with the home they live in even if others do have more and that there is some curiosities in the world around them. Lao Tzu wanted “The Master” to not try to control the people and be appreciative of their surroundings. This is also because he believed that people were born naturally good and that they deserved the benefit of the doubt that they would not betray, even saying “Act for the people's benefit. Trust them; leave them alone.” (Lao Tzu 59) Finally, Lao Tzu believed people needed to find their own happiness and that it is something that couldn’t be forced onto people but only guided. Lao tzu believed that “The ancient Masters didn’t try try to educate the people, but kindly taught them to not-know” (Lao Tzu 50) showing that he believed people should not be forced into what they should learn to appreciate, rather, only lightly showed what to do. Machiavelli on the other hand was a man who believed people were manipulable and that they were evil at heart and the good could never prosper. Machiavelli truly believed people should learn to be strong and only through being strong would they able to accomplish anything. He wished for people to “ not take anything as his profession but war” (Machiavelli 1), believing that war was all the leader should be prepared for. He wanted the leaders of his time, to become stronger so they would be able to resist outside influences from other countries and wanted this so bad that he believed the rulers of the time needed to become ruthless and cold. Peace time was of no meaning to Machiavelli’s philosophy which strongly influenced even that of Joseph Stalin in the Cold war. (Machiavelli 3) He even believed they should learn to embrace their vices instead of virtues and strongly believed that war was a necessity to claim the things wanted in life. In fact, Machiavelli goes as far to say “ One must take on vices in order to be a successful ruler” (Machiavelli 9) He wanted “his prince” to constantly rule in which he was feared, not loved or praised because all that ever leads to is being weak to the people that are bad in this world. Promises were something only used to manipulate the minds of men, and promises that were kept are for the weak. Ruling with fear, but not be despised, become a righteous man with strong ambitions for the good of all, and through this, it becomes hard to attack because the intentions are good but the actions to reach those intentions are just not healthy. It’s like helping feed the homeless through stealing from a local grocery store; it helps the people that are homeless but hurts the grocery store. To be a master or to be a prince, to show the way of the Tao, or to be the prince that lusts for power and use any means necessary to obtain it. Lao Tzu wished to show people the path of enlightenment, to become happy through appreciating the things we see in front of us and not wish for more as all it leads to is discomfort and hate from others. He was a man who truly wished to find what would make all happy. Machiavelli wanted to be stronger, he wanted to show that with power lies great depth in terms of possibilities. Using free time to prepare for the battles that would be soon to come, to lead with fear, to manipulate the minds of people in order to obtain what was necessary; he wanted his country to be seen as strong and not vulnerable. Though the two are separate in terms of governing, they can become the guidelines for what one can see as the perfect government when combined together.