Daniel Kelman
Eng 101
03/25/14
Paper 2
Option 1

Laochiavelli

The core difference between these two writers is realism versus idealism. Machiavelli writes from a point of personal experience and knowledge of history, while Lao-tzu writes from a, seemingly, philosophical point. It isn't actually known who Lao-tzu really was, so he may actually be writing from personal experience as well, but in a much more idealistic fashion. Machiavelli makes far more sense in a practical way most likely because of the capitalist world of backstabbing and douchebaggery we live in. Anyone with great ambition is automatically unable to understand the fundamentals of Taoism, and our society teaches ambition from a young age. This forces Lao-tzu's writings into idealism, even if it was not meant as such. Even though they share some similar ideas, Machiavelli deals with the practical reality of being a prince, while Lao-tzu writes about being a master governing an idealistic nation. While they are not opposites, they do not mesh well with one another.
There are two large differences in these writer's philosophies. First, Machiavelli's government is entirely focused on preserving itself. Wartime and political intrigue are the only things that matter to the prince's leadership. Keeping that leadership is the only thing that should matter to the prince. Conversely, the master doesn't lead at all. The people don't follow him, they follow the example he sets. When Lao-tzu's "[m]aster governs, the people are hardly aware that he exists " (tzu 4). The master is as uninvolved with the people's everyday lives as possible. The master's government only exists to help the people in keeping with the Tao.
Second is in the prince's and master's obligations as leaders. A prince "must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war" (mach 1). His most important task is to prepare for conflict, whether offensive or defensive in nature. He must spend any free time training, by action, or by learning. In action, he goes out and trains with his soldiers. He hunts, and must "accustom his body to hardships" (mach 3). He goes out and familiarizes himself with the terrain of his land, to be better prepared to defend, and also to be better prepared to attack, other lands in similar terrain. With learning, he reads the history of past leaders who were successful in war. He thinks of scenarios he may find his army in, and what he can best do to ensure victory.
The master, on the other hand, "leads by emptying people’s minds and filling their cores, by weakening their ambition and toughening their resolve. He helps people lose everything they know, everything they desire, and creates confusion in those who think that they know" (tzu 2). He leads as an example to his people. He "avoid[s] being clever or rich.
The simplest pattern is the clearest. Content with an ordinary life, you can show all people the way back to their own true nature" (tzu 52). He avoids war whenever possible, because "[p]eace is his highest value. If the peace has been shattered, how can he be content?" (tzu 20). Discontent people are far more likely to seek new leadership.
Machiavelli focuses mostly on what the prince should and should not do to maintain his leadership. An important point he brings up is on generosity versus miserliness. He advocates miserliness, because generosity can quickly use up the funds of the state. This can lead to excessive taxing and unhappiness amongst the prince's subjects. Being miserly will allow a prince to have money for unexpected expenditures such as war or famine. Being able to deal with these problems without heavily taxing the people will lead to him being thought of as generous in the end. He encourages princes to be exceedingly generous with the wealth taken from other lands through military conquest. This give and take of generosity and miserliness creates a balance that keeps a prince from being despised.
Like the rest of the Tao-te Ching, balance is an all important concept for the government as well. Lao-tzu has one main rule for the work of the state, and that is "there is nothing better than moderation" (tzu 41). As he writes:
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have, the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self- reliant people will be. (tzu 36) Lao-tzu's government is more of a consensual group of ideas that everyone shares rather than an actual person in charge. Both writers push for a balance in the work of the state, with different qualities.
On the qualities of the prince and the master, it can be said that they are two sides of the same coin. Both Machiavelli and Lao-tzu speak of similar qualities. Love, fear and being despised. Machiavelli writes on love and fear, "that one should like to be both one and the other; but since it is difficult to join them together, it is much safer to be feared than to be loved when one of the two must be lacking (Mach 14)." Lao-tzu writes of a hierarchy of qualities for a leader. The best is the master who leads his people without his people knowing they are being led, "[n]ext best is a leader who is loved. Next, one who is feared. The worst is one who is despised" (tzu 4). Both writers agree that being despised is the worst possible quality for a leader.
Machiavelli also writes that a prince "should appear, upon seeing and hearing him, to be all mercy, all faithfulness, all integrity, all kindness, all religion" (mach 24). The prince must only appear as such. He need not actually possess all of those qualities, and he should be ready to act against them when the situation calls for it. Lao-tzu writes of similar qualities again in a hierarchy. It begins with the Tao. "When the Tao is lost, there is goodness. When goodness is lost, there is morality. When morality is lost, there is ritual. Ritual is the husk of true faith, the beginning of chaos" (tzu 28). Much like the prince, the master "concerns himself with the depths and not the surface" (tzu 29). Both leaders must be above such qualities to be effective. While the prince must put on the facade, the master doesn't talk, he acts.
While not entirely contradictory, it would be impossible to be both Machiavelli's prince and Lao-tzu's master at the same time. The prince focuses on maintaining his leadership, while the master doesn't lead at all. Also, the prince's need to be in constant training for warfare directly opposes the master's disdain of violence. On the other hand, both call for balance in the government, whether with the nation's funds, or with everything. They also both write that the leader must be able to act outside of the qualities that are generally found as "good". A leader who wished to be truly great would pay close attention to both texts.

Jacobus, Lee A. (2013-01-04). A World of Ideas (Page 206-207, 210-212, 221-222, 224, 227, 230-231). Bedford/St. Martin's. Kindle Edition.

douchebaggery - noun - an act that would make one be considered a douche bag