Hippie v. Mussolini
(A comparison of Lao-tzu’s Tao-te Ching and Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Qualities of the Prince)
Undisputed is the fact that governmental systems develop and transform at the mercy of the hands with the power to mold social change. These sculpting hands are a part of the ruler’s metaphysical body. That is to say, the ruler has the ability to modify a government, but not exclusively. Many other factors—like citizen cooperation—can affect the direction in which a state is moving. In terms of moral displacement, these changes can be awarded titles of “progressive” if deemed positive, “stagnated” if deemed as an equal comparative, or “retrogressive” is deemed negative. Of course, the analysis of each attribute of moral change, being inherently good, or bad, within the government is debatable. In an attempt to decipher the best mode of governance, Lao-tzu and Niccolo Machiavelli, have written contrasting ruling guild lines. Lao-tzu’s methodology is based…show more content… In Taoism, the work of the state is simple—only do what you need. Let the rest be, and it will work out. Quoting a single (or even multiple) instance of this idea being mentioned is almost impossible—it is the embodiment of the entire peace. Nothing could contrast this idea more than Prince. The perfect ruler, according to Machiavelli, is a liar, a cheat, a deceiver, and is also orchestrating some grand plan to control more land with more subjects. This ruler doesn’t—and shouldn’t—be genuine, but must be believed to be, “… it is necessary for him to appear to have them.” (pg 45, ¶ 23) This man must be ruthless and distortive on the outside. A cold blooded killer, that blames the victim for being to heartless. The irony would be ironic, if it was not to be the point—how ironic. Basically the work of the state is a reflection of a corrupt and evil ruler. And somehow, that is supposed to be a good thing.