The difference between these two is clear from the outset, and typified by their different approaches to military power. Lao Tzu claims that "he who (relies on) the strength of his forces does not conquer." (ch 76) This idea is held through-out his writings, as he tries to get

So far, it might seem to modern sympathies that Machiavelli thought that rulers should be tyrannical and impious while Lao Tzu was liberal in spirit and of pious bent -- with such a presupposition one might be surprised to discover that, quite unlike Machiavelli, Lao Tzu actually believed in repressing education and wealth among the people and in avoiding allowing talented people into positions of influence. Machiavelli very strongly suggests that the Prince should encourage his subjects to be intelligent and should work to secure their wealth. He goes so far as to say that the intelligence and quality of the Prince's advisors are a perfect indicator of the Prince's own worth. "When they are capable and faithful he may always be considered wise, because he has known how to recognize the capable and to keep them faithful. But when they are otherwise one cannot form a good opinion of him, for the prime error which he made was in choosing them." (Machiavelli, ch 22) Lao Tzu, on the other hand, suggests that "In a little state with a small population, I would so order it, that, though there were individuals with the abilities of ten or a hundred men, there should be no employment of them" (ch. 80) This is in keeping with his overall suggestion that the population will be most at peace if they are ignorant and poor. (A cynic would add that this only makes them easier to subtly manipulate!) Thus Tzu writes that the wise act not "to enlighten the people, but rather to make them simple and ignorant [because]... The difficulty in governing the people arises from their having much knowledge.... Therefore the sage [leader]... empties their minds, fills their bellies, weakens their wills, and strengthens their bones... [to] keep them without knowledge and without desire... When there is this abstinence from action, good order is universal." (Ch 2-3) At the very end of his work, he goes so far as to say that the houses, fare, and frivolities of the people should be very plain so as to discourage desire and create order in the state. This stands in direct conflict with Machiavelli's idea that the people will resent a ruler which makes them seem poor, and that it is for this very reason that financial liberality with taxed money is a poor idea, in that taxes may impoverish the people. "I say that it would be well to be reputed liberal. Nevertheless, liberality exercised in a way that does not bring you the reputation for it, injures you." Of course, it is worth noting at this point that this different reflects a primary difference in value systems between Machiavelli and Lao Tzu, in that the latter considers desire and pride to be the great pitfalls of existence in general while the former considers them a natural and vital part of the political process. This is evidenced in Lao Tzu's insistence in chapter sixty-six that the ruler should appear to be below and behind all men, so that they would not feel misused that he was in fact above and before them; such an idea is in sharp contrast to Machiavelli's argument that a king should not even appear to be weak and must always pre

Some common words found in the essay are:
Lao Tzu, Tzu Machiavelli, Lao Tzu's, Left NCLB, President Bush, Likewise Machiavelli, Whereas Machiavelli, lao tzu, Tao-te Ching, Likewise Bush, Rome Machiavelli, lao tzu's, tzu ch, tzu machiavelli, machiavelli lao tzu, machiavelli lao, lao tzu actually, capable faithful, arms laws, military power, machiavelli ch, terms personal demeanor, lao tzu believes, tzu believes,
Approximate Word count = 2089
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page double spaced)