Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Government & Politics The Questions of Goverment The Questions of Goverment There has been demanding controversies concerning how a successful government should be maintained. Many writers and politicians have written a great deal of political propaganda, including several documents that exhibit different opinions on how an organization, such as a government, or club should uphold laws, written or unwritten. Such documents include Lao Tzu’s, “Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching,” Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of the Prince.” Although each of these works contain important advice, as time progresses circumstances often change, and with that comes new and effective ways to maintain an organization, government, etc.. More importantly, the documents represent the author’s opinion, thus contradicting other works. The objective of works such as these, is to create a powerful and flawless society - a society which does not, nor ever will exist. No document created by man can prove to be effective and dependable throughout time. I believe that as societies and conditions change, the laws and procedures must also change in order to have a successful government. Failing to do so would result in devastation and anarchy. Although no present document has gained complete trust and acceptance, perhaps it is necessary to combine the practical and logical aspects and conform them to today’s society. Doing this would not create a perfect society, (as one does not exist) only perchance a stronger and more effective government. One must not seek perfection, only improvement. Rulers who have tried to do so in the past have been unsuccessful, as perfection is also a controversial subject. The ever-struggling controversies make it very difficult for people, of all cultures, to come to an understanding on subjects such as war and the way in which a government should be conducted. The issue of war and its conditions and necessities has been an ever-struggling topic throughout time. According to Machiavelli, A prince, therefore, must not have any other object nor another thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war, its institutions, and its discipline; because that is the only profession which befits one who commands; and it is of such importance that not only does it maintain those who were born princes...” (35). In this, Machiavelli stresses the importance of being prepared for war other than the importance of all other aspects pertaining to governing. The positive side of running a government in a fashion such as this is the fact that a strong militia equals a strong government. A strong government has its commendable aspects. In such cases where a nation is facing a critical situation, whether or not it will survive strictly depends on the stability and power of the government. Despite the noble characteristics of a strong government, the question of how strong is too strong must be carefully examined. If we allow the government to have complete control over how we live our lives, what amount of individuality and consciousness would a person be permitted? Through a careful analyzing of present documents concerning issues such as this, a medium must be found to create a fair and effective government. In reference to the cruelty of war, Machiavelli writes, “ But when the prince is with his armies and has under his command a multitude of troops, then it is absolutely necessary that he not worry about being considered cruel; for without that reputation he will never keep an army united or prepared for any combat” (42). In this, Machiavelli believes that a prince must be considered cruel to earn the respect and fear for his troops as well as his enemy. This technique has proven to be practical. The use of instilling this fear into those desired is realistic, yet Lao Tzu has a completely different approach: Weapons are the tools of violence; all decent men detest them. Weapons are the tools of fear; a decent man will avoid them except in the direst necessity and, if compelled, will use them only with the utmost restraint...He enters a battle gravely, with sorrow and with great compassion as if her were attending a funeral. (A World of Ideas 23). Lao Tzu believes that war is a last resort. A situation where this type of reasoning was used was in World War II. President Truman had to make on of the most detrimental decision of the century when he commanded the use of the atomic bomb. Truman did not make this decision easily, but as the situation became increasingly critical to the position of the United States, the action was clearly unavoidable. Another contradiction pertaining to the different opinions of political writers is the subject of how a ruler should rule his people. Lao Tzu writes, “Therefore the Master says: I let go of the law, and people become honest. I let go of economics, and people become prosperous. I let go of religion, and people become serene. I let go of all desire for the common good, and the good becomes common as grass” (25). Critics would call this permissive anarchy. Lao Tzu believes it is the key to a successful government. Machiavelli would call this insane. ...a prince must not worry about the reproach of cruelty when it is a matter of keeping his subjects united and loyal; for with a very few examples of cruelty he will be more compassionate than those who, out of excessive mercy, permit disorders to continue from which arise murders and plundering; for these usually harm the community at large, while the executions that come from the prince harm on individual in particular (41). The contrast between these two writers is obvious. While one persuades an almost nonexistent government, the other persuades total control and responsibility for those governed. By comparing the difference between these two writers, my purpose is merely to explain why it would be illogical to use only one document when the answer (not solution - as perfection does not exist) is the combination. Lao Tzu writes that “The world is sacred. It can’t be improved. If you tamper with it, you’ll ruin it. If you treat it like an object. you’ll lose it” (22). I believe that the world can be improved. By believing that the “world” cannot be changed, regardless of any plan of action, you abandon our responsibility as the dominating species, the “world” is, in part, our responsibility. Human nature created hierarchy, the survival of the fittest, and the government. Humans are to blame for any conceived problem with society, as they created the society. Furthermore, the conceived problems our “world” faces are changeable. It is our responsibility to stop complaining about how unjust and appalling the “world” is. It is our responsibility to conduct a plan of action - a plan of emends, be it trial and error or a “quick-fix” (if such a thing exists). My “answer,” if you will, is not a definite plan of action, it is merely a combination of practical , logical and ethical aspects in effort to find a common ground between people, whether it be in a town, city, state, country or continent. The issue of war is and perhaps will always be an unsettled topic. Neither Machiavelli nor Lao Tzu has the definite answer. Machiavelli is perhaps to unconcerned with the concept of morality (most cultures have a religion). Lao Tzu on the other and may be overly concerned with morality. The solution is simple: combining the best qualities as the people and government sees fit, by taking into consideration that religion plays an important part in how the lives of people are lived. At the same time, basing any society on a specific religion is impossible, as religion is also a controversial subject. Religion is brought into government because it is essentially a part of the people. Furthermore, religion must not be the epitome of government, as there are certain times when war, discontent and revolution are unavoidable. Logic must be taken into consideration. No one person has the solution to the problems our “world” is facing. World War II is the perfect example for that. What Hitler saw as the “perfect world” wasn’t “perfect.” In reality his quest for a flawless “world” killed millions of undeserving people. Whether human beings can put aside their differences and find common respects and concerns is strictly up to them. The ending solution will not be found in a book, only in the individuals who choose to make emends to the conceived problems and affairs throughout the world. The solution is in us, the man-made society. Bibliography: Word Count: 1421
Copyright © 1998-2008 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved. DMCA Notifications and Requests