rnment is better. When the Master governs, the peopleAre hardly aware that he existsNext best is a leader who is loved.Next, one who is feared.The worst is one who is despised. (Lao-Tzu 20)He believes a good government should have simplicity, patience, and compassion. Lao-Tzu believes in moderation. Much like the teachings of the Bible, this ancient philosopher believes that too much of anything can be bad. He shares the belief of Machiavelli that too many taxes are bad. Too many taxes makes your people go hungry. Unlike Machiavellis policy of conquest of other nations, he believes a leader should stay within his country and govern his people only. Lao-Tzu is more liberal in social matters, while in economic and political matters, he is more conservative. Machiavelli is a little more conservative in about every matter. A mix of both of these theories is the best for the United States. There is always a danger if we are too liberal, or too conservative. Something that candidates for any office in the United States in past years have shot for is middle of the road politics, appealing to both liberal democrats and conservative republicans. Now, if those politicians would only keep their promises from their election campaigns, it would be more like Lao-Tzu. But not keeping promises is something Machiavelli would do. All in all, both of these gentlemen have characteristics that would make leaders, and their handbooks I believe would definitely help American leaders today. A mixture of their war policies would be beneficial, for there is definitely no need for war, but a national defense is necessary. Right now the nation's military is about the size it needs to be. We need the teaching of Lao-Tzu to keep George W. Bush and his wacky cabinet members in line. Right wing America would love Machiavelli and his "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" sort of attitude. The defense industry would be booming with a Machiavellian ...
