FRQ 3: Machiavelli vs Lao-Tzu A good ruler is one who is both loved and feared. A leader can be loved so much that his subjects are afraid to disappoint him. Thus, in essence both Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli are correct in their viewpoints. However, both their viewpoints on how leaders lead and what makes a good leader seem extremely contradictory. Lao-Tzu's concept of war was that it should be avoided, but if it had to be done then it should be done with a solemn respect, an attitude similar that one would have when "attending a funeral." (Verse 31 line 23). Machiavelli, though, approached the concept of the relationship between leader and war as inseparable. His idea was that only a great warrior could be a great leader, and that leader had to continue his practice as being a warrior having no "other…show more content… Machiavelli believes it should be through fear and show of strength, while Lao-Tzu believes that it should be through love and that the people should be trusted with virtually completely control of themselves, as stated at the beginning of verse 57 "let go of fixed plans and concepts and the world will govern itself." People respond to how they are led. Leading through fear and intimidation makes life miserable for the subjects and can lead to a revolution and overthrow of the government. Leading through trust and love is beneficial to the subjects, as Lao-Tzu said that when people are "governed with tolerance, the people are comfortable and honest" and repression with depression. (Verse 58 line 38). In a perfect world, a leader who is a tempered mixture of both Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu's ideas of a good leader would be chosen. However in a contest requiring one or the other to be chosen, love and trust would be chosen over fear and intimidation. Both Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu agree that the best leader is one who is both loved and
