Here are my suggestions:
"Plato has a great deal to say about goodness at it relates to government. Compare his views with those (Who is "those"? It is too early in your essay to use vague references.) thinkers would Plato have agreed with most? In comparing these three writes and their political views, consider the nature of goodness they required in a ruler. Do you think that we hold similar attitudes today in our expectations for the goodness of out government?
Throughout human civilization, there are different forms of governments as well as various interpretation of power exercise. People have once been governed by empire state, communism, and democracy; for the person who is in the position of power, there has once been given the name as Emperor, leader and president. From time to time, the argument of how a leader wield his power has been longstanding in political debate. Philosophers such as Plato, Lao-Tzu and Niccole Machiavelli once proposed their insightful political viewpoint to advice the person in power. Their gears of thoughts split into two prospects- the idealistic view and the realistic view. Plato and Lao-Tzu attributed to the idealistic view; on the contrary, Machiavelli account for realistic view. The idealistic view exclaims that the good of the world lies on spiritual liberation; the realistic view proclaims that ideal society only exists in achievable physical forms of government. Throughout time , the political practice of government has adapted either idealistic or realistic view, however , what and how does those standing contribute to a governor to achieve an ideal state? (This is weak because it is confusing; try condensing it down to its bare points to make sure your readers know where you are going here. Then you can add in some details to make it interesting, but not too much because it is easy to get lost.)
In the idealistic view, Plato and Lao-Tzu philosophies of a ruler are somewhat similar in spirit, but different in action. They both regard individual's happiness as the basic unit of society and the final goal of a ruler. However, both of them believe that individual happiness stems from spiritual fulfillment. Under this premise, Plato maintains that a governor suppose to play a leading role, steering his subject toward a world of intellect. His political insights reveals in"The Allegory of Cave ". In the allegory, there are people chained in a cave, unable to turn their heads .All they can see are the shadows of objects cast on the wall. Without knowing the outside world, they take the shadows as reality. However, if one prisoner were set free into the real world, at first, he will be blinded by the light of the sun and confront reality. Gradually, he would be able to see things as they are. The liberated one, who has completed the ascent out of the cave into the light, is obligated to return to the cave. By introducing the sun of the outside world, he will educate and enlighten the prisoners in the cave. (This is a great explanation of this very confusing allegory; nice work.) Plato uses the metaphor to imply that what we take as reality – the world of sights and sounds is not the real and the truth lies on the spiritual world. Only the one who perceives the truth is fit to govern. His duty is to educate people as the way he enlighten the prisoners in the cave. By knowing the truth, he will not be seduced by the substance of the world of sights and sounds but he will justify his authority by his wisdom and virtue. His role is the guardian of the society who introduces the spiritual good to his subject. (Good analysis here.)
In comparison, Lao-Tzu maintains that a ruler should permit everything take its course within any forms of governance. His political perception is much related to his opposition of materialism. He believes that everything derived from desire, to achieve happiness, Individual should return the self to a state of primitive contentment. If people live in accord with his true being and nature, the world will stabilize itself. Thus, there is no necessity for a governor to constraint individual natural will for that result in imbalance of the world. (What does this say about individuality in this type of society?) His ideal governor is given the name of Sage, he states that "Therefore the Sage says: I take no action yet the people will enrich themselves. " Thus, the role of a governor is willing to permit everything takes its nature course. Lao-Tzu's opposition of materialism is somehow that Plato agree with, they both seek an ideal state that people will benefit without domination but spiritual liberation.
In the realistic view, Machiavelli argues that the ruler's primary duty is controlling his power to built a consolidated the nation. Only a strong nation can bring people security and happiness. Therefore, there is nothing more important for a ruler to maintain his power. Thus, a ruler could be feared rather than be loved, even cruelty is acceptable if he is to concrete his authority. To Machiavelli, people are bad in essence; laws and punishment are necessary element of because proper justification is necessary to take someone's life. On the contrast, Lao-tzu thinks that the leader should not control nor legitimate right from wrong among people. (According to Lao-tzu, what should the leaders be doing then, if not leading his/her people onto the "right" path? Why do these people need a leader at all?) What he believes is that "The more prohibition you have, the less virtuous you have. And "People are depressed and crafty if they are governed with repression; a country should govern with tolerance." Moreover, Machiavelli specifies certain means to facilitate a ruler to manipulate his nations. First, he asserts laws are fundamental principle for society however good laws follow naturally from a good military. He advises that activity and strategy of military force is an absolute priority for any leader. In order to equip with military force, the leader should be familiar with his home terrain and know history of great states and past leaders. However, Lao-tzu states that for governing a country there is nothing better than moderation, a leader could observe his terrain through contemplation Machiavelli's strategy to equip with military is to facilitate a war, in his thought, war is unavoidable for to institute an ordered, united nation. Despite minimized restriction of individual, Lao-tzu believes there should be no pride in tallying the suffering in the world. In comparison to idealistic view, Machiavelli believes that idealism is impossible to achieve in the world. Thus his suggestion of a ruler is in giving direct and effective means .Advices on how to conduct a good war, how to effectively fortify a city, and how to prevent conspiracy. Perhaps it may be that Machiavelli fully expects that the governor will use his power for good ends rather than fall into tyranny. (In this line of thought, how is one to secure a nation from other hostile nations then?)
Society has once embraced Machiavelli's' suggestion however it corrupted in the end .The example of Hitler to German, Mussolini to Italy, their authority has once dominated but finally collapsed. Even the existing one has been tested. Burma, the country has long been manipulated by military junta once crackdown on thousands of Buddhist monks protesting sharp rises in the price of food and fuel. It seems that what Machiavelli suggested is easy to be dictatorship, result in great impoverishment and turmoil. However, a government of liberation seems to be unattainable and remain in utopian dream. Even we have gone through the democracy, democracy is still a form of structuralized hierarchy and a position of leader is inevitable. For what and how should the head of government stand for? I believe that those philosophies are thought to be achieving an idea state at the standing point. A government is to be instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed .Thus, the one how is in position of power is to keep in mind on what Jefferson said , " Men are endowed with rights, that among these are Life ,Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Your conclusion should be a wrap-up of your essay. You could quickly rephrase each of these three philosophies and point out their failures, or do a quick explanation of why it is none/all/some of these work in the "real world".
I hope this helps.