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. Machiavelli writes:...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 ...
