The assignment is to provide two differences on Lao-Tzu's, author of Tao-te-ching, and Machiavelli's, author of The Qualities of the Prince, views on ruling and governing. I have to use two quotes from their two books (one for each book) and it has to be 700 words. I've only done the first paragraph for the first difference and I'm working on the second but any feedback would be fantastic. Thanks so much for your help!
The Perfect Leader
In a nation with such variety of different opinions and views, people have the freedom to choose the leader who has the most policies they agree with. With that being said, people running for a leadership role can voice their opinions, which will differ from most but not all of their opponents, in the hopes that it will attract more supporters. For example, in the United States with a democratic government, two main parties narrow it down to one candidate per party that will showcase their opinions and beliefs on how the country should be run. Then, the people will elect the one who they feel is the best fit for the job. People disagree on certain matters often and historical figures, such as Lao-Tzu, the author of the Tao-te-ching, and Machiavelli, the author of The Qualities of the Prince, have different views on the matter of ruling and governing. One main difference between Lao-Tzu's and Machiavelli's opinions on governing is whether or not a ruler should be feared or loved and the other is ...
In his book Tao-te-ching, Lao-Tzu takes an understandable and reasonable stance towards how a ruler should lead his subjects. Like most rulers, except dictators and some others, they want the people they govern to like them and to have a special connection with them. In the book, Lao-Tzu stays, "Next best is the leader who is loved. Next, the one who is feared. The worst is one who is despised." He thinks that if his people love him, his ruling would run much more smoothly than if they hated him. He also states that if a government is too involved or controlling, the people will rebel. Lao-Tzu believes that a ruler should see the good in all of his people and trust in them that they will do the right things. On the contrary though, in Machiavelli's book, The Qualities of the Prince, he voices his opinion that a ruler should work towards being feared rather than loved. Although feared and hated are sometimes connected, he makes it a point to mention that being hated is not beneficial for him or his country. "A prince must nevertheless make himself feared in such a manner that he will avoid hatred, even if he does not acquire love; since to be feared and not to be hated can very well be combined; and this will always be so when he keeps his hands off the property and the women of his citizens and his subjects" stated by Machiavelli portrays the possibility of being feared but not hated. Both ways are efficient ways to run a government although they are completely different. Another difference Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli have is that ...
I think you're doing really well and have some good ideas. I would stay away from injecting your own opinions into this form of academic writing--for example, when you call Lao-Tzu's ideas "understandable and reasonable" that takes away your academic objectivity. Better to let the reader decide for him or herself, and just confine yourself to drawing the contrast the assignment asks for. I hope that helps, good luck!
