against America by the British, as well as other strong factors, led to the American revolution. He believes a government should be miserly with its own goods. That is not to say you cant steal the goods of conquered countries and be liberal with them. Try not to be too generous, however. A quote I once read says remember to pillage before you burn. This reminds me a lot of the ideas of Machiavelli. According to him, one should say one thing just to make the people happy, and do another. He believes one should only keep his word if it is for the benefit of the nation. Six words: read my lips, no new taxes, come to mind. George H.W. Bush said these words, but acted differently. Machiavellian? Maybe. Bush shortly after had the largest tax hike in the nation's history to try to save us from the worst recession since the Great Depression. I believe this is the sort of thing Machiavelli is talking about. Do whatever you can to keep the people happy, but when it comes down to it, what makes them happy may not be best for the state as a whole. He believes that people are generally bad and greedy, so they will take whatever you give them. Lao-Tzu is not exactly polar opposite of Machiavelli, although he is close. He believes that man in a state of nature is generally good and not greedy. What makes man greedy is overemphasis on material objects, and if you let a man go free in nature, he will be good. Lao-Tzu believes in a state of peace; war is not necessary. Lao-Tzu thinks decent men detest weapons. Weapons are only needed when entirely necessary, in a state of defense. This is sort of a liberal point of view of war. He states violence, even well intentioned, always rebounds upon itself, therefore, any attack upon another country will result in an attack upon yourself. As far as the scale of government, he is rather conservative and would side with the American Republican party, believing a smaller, more unnoticed gove...
