Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli both give advice and teach the leaders with more differences than similarity. Lao-Tzu’s teachings are like a mother to her child; soft, patient, and light discipline. However, Machiavelli is the stern father, saying “son, get up, stop crying, and be a man!” Both completely opposites; especially, when viewing he government. Both agree with keeping a strong image and never being boastful when giving. Lao-Tzu’s teachings are softer. He explains how the leader should lead as if the people were in control, “the master acts without doing anything/ and teaches without saying anything” meaning the master makes himself look like he is the one with no control. In comparison, Machiavelli explains that the prince should be in control and lead with his military instead of with his people. However, Machiavelli believes the prince’s power should not be forced, because it will never succeed. …show more content…
The mother, being humane and sympathetic, would disagree and say “you should not fight.” The father, being barbarous, says “fight! If there is any threat, fight!” Lao-tzu and Machiavelli are like the mother and father in this scenario. Loa-tzu believes weapons are used for fear, “Weapons are the tools of fear; a decent man will avoid them except in the direct necessity… will use them only with the utmost restraint.” (Lao-Tzu 27). A master will only use a weapon for defense and not use it as a control strategy. Machiavelli believes that being feared is better than being loved “…it is much safer to be feared than to be loved… men are less hesitant about harming someone…” (Machiavelli 46). Machiavelli feels that it is easier for men to kill someone and that using fear is a better way to