Rousseau has total faith in the
people, he believes that they should govern themselves and they only need a
ruler until they can keep track of themselves. He most likely would approve of
current day democracies because they allow the people to be active in their
government. The ruler of Rousseau’s form of government must be loyal to his
people and act as a father figure, guide the way for his children/ citizens
then let them go once they have all of the necessary skills to fend for
themselves. The citizens living within this land must be willing to give up
their individual rights to a social contract which groups up all of their rights
into one big community right.
I
don’t believe that any government of this sort actually exists, I mean yes
there are democracies don’t get me wrong but a citizen ruled state would be a disaster.
I think it is necessary for there to be one central ruler or leader in charge. It
is like a company for instance, it is not going to run well if everyone is trying
to collaborate and come to an agreement, there needs to be a single individual
to keep everything straight and make the final call on what is going to happen.
Rousseau’s idea is good in theory because yes the people do get to be a part in
making laws and decisions for their state but in the end someone needs to have
the final say.
Machiavelli 's idea compared to Rousseau
seems very harsh, his leader is to be actively involved with governing his
people. He believes that whatever the prince decides to do it will always be
right and should be honored by the people, even though that choice may not be
ethical. This idea can be generated by reading Machiavelli’s the “ends justify
the means” quote. The Declaration of Independence does justify the colony’s
rebellion because they were not being treated fairly by their ruler. If life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness is being denied to the people by the
government then they are justified to overthrow their current government.
I believe that independence can
justify war and death, this is because the wellbeing of the people of the
nation should come first. If the people are not being treated fairly then they
should be able to do whatever it takes to be insured independence and freedom. I
think that Jefferson was pleased by the independence that was gained from the
American Revolution, although there was a lot of bloodshed I think he believed
that it needed to be done. I think that he would have agreed with Machiavelli’s
quote because independence did justify the means of war.
Below you will find a comparison
of Lao Tzu’s very poetic ideas on government compared with Machiavelli’s more
strict ideas.
Political figure
Lao Tzu
Machiavelli
Purpose of Government
This intellectual believes that the government’s main purpose is
to maintain the wellbeing of the people. Unlike traditional governments,
their power is limited in order to avoid changing nature’s course. Along with
this the government will not try to convince its people of anything.
Maintaining power is a huge component of Machiavelli’s idea on
government. By keeping the nation strong its people will in turn be peaceful and
happy. Similar to Lao Tzu, Machiavelli also believes that the wellbeing of
the country’s citizens must always be kept in mind. Lastly the government must
create laws and rules that apply to the specific situation at hand.
Leader’s Obligation
According to Lao Tzu the leader has many obligations: no use of
violence, maintain happy citizens, enter battles with sorrow. These are just
a few of the very important traits a leader must maintain. One main
obligation of the leader is to avoid influencing change but instead just let
nature take its course. Lao Tzu says “the world is a sacred place,” things
should not be altered by the individual but instead should just be left
alone. A more obscure obligation is that the leader must be discrete in
governing the people, if they don’t think that they are being governed then
there will be less problems.
On the complete opposite side of the spectrum lies the
obligations of the leader in Machiavelli’s eyes. The concerns/rights of the
individual within the country are to be ignored by the leader. In this type
of government, it is necessary to do what is best for the country not the
individual. The main role of the leader is to secure power and security of
the nation by direct an effective means. With this comes a leader who must be
loved but feared at the same time. Now this may all seem a bit much but
Machiavelli does not intend for this leader to be a tyrant.
Work of the State
Good relations between the people of the state and the leader
are key within Lao Tzu’s idea of government. Similar to the leader’s role the
people must also let nature influence what will happen. By living under a
government described by Lao Tzu the people of the state are lead toward being
less selfish. With the elimination of the desire for material goods people of
this state are less likely to commit crime. Overall Lao Tzu’s thinking
basically says that less government intervention equals happier citizens.
Less government is not the case in Machiavelli’s eyes…actually
it is the complete opposite. The people of this type of state must express
fear as well as love toward their leader. For example, if someone did
something wrong they would be brutally punished in front of the other
townspeople as an example of what would happen if a crime was committed. This
was done to instill fear. Contrary to the previous statement, leaders would
benefit the community by keeping them safe and donating to communities. Overall
people of this state must know that the leader is in place to keep the
security of the state intact.
Qualities of the Leader
Often named Master or Sage, which means wise, must have multiple
traits in order to be a successful leader. The leader must always trust his
people and not talk or act out of character. When it comes to power he must
not try to be powerful but instead just let nature make him powerful.
The number one quality of Machiavelli’s leader is that he must
be able to survive. With survival comes knowing how to hunt, follow the land
and the history of the country. As a leader his profession is to be
competitive in wars and express discipline. There is no time off for the
leader, even in time of peace he must still be training. Although this leader
seems to be intimidating he must also have good virtues and intelligence.
Following the comparison are some videos about Lao Tzu and Machiavelli's ideas.
This is Lao Tzu's Philosophy of The Way
This is an Introduction of Machiavelli's piece The Prince
I
don’t believe that any government of this sort actually exists, I mean yes
there are democracies don’t get me wrong but a citizen ruled state would be a disaster.
I think it is necessary for there to be one central ruler or leader in charge. It
is like a company for instance, it is not going to run well if everyone is trying
to collaborate and come to an agreement, there needs to be a single individual
to keep everything straight and make the final call on what is going to happen.
Rousseau’s idea is good in theory because yes the people do get to be a part in
making laws and decisions for their state but in the end someone needs to have
the final say. 
