Please critique my essay?

[Paladin Dave]

I know it is pretty long winded, but this is a rougher draft of it, and contains a lot more data than the final version I submitted. Still, I want to know what you guys think of it.

[font=&quot]Taoism Versus Machiavellian Government[/font]

[font=&quot] [/font]

[font=&quot] [/font]

[font=&quot]Government is fundamental to human society and civilization. The most grueling trial in Governing is to find a way to establish and execute a perfect government. Although it is arguable that this is a goal that will never be reached, it is possible, and in fact, beneficial, for leaders to review and cull the various forms of government, comparing and culling different styles of leadership. In order to determine whether a government based on Taoist or Machiavellian ideals is best, the two styles of government shall be analyzed respectively, and then the conclusion of which set of ideals is the best shall be made.[/font]

[font=&quot] [/font]

[font=&quot]To begin the examination, Taoism is a set of beliefs and ideals that were cultivated and recorded by the ancient Chinese philosopher, Lao Tzu. A fundamental and central term of Taoism is Tao, which means, “The Way”. Aside from that one word, the Tao is not defined specifically in Lao Tzu’s book, the Tao Te Ching; in fact, he states that it can not be easily defined. The “persona”, for lack of a better word, of Taoism is one of inner peace and passive behavior. It is ultimately a sort of leader’s handbook, but its teachings of a leader leaving their charge alone and letting take its course promotes a sort of reverse-leadership. In the 3rd paragraph of part 57 of the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu writes, [/font]

[font=&quot]“Therefore, the Master says:[/font]

[font=&quot]I let go of the law,[/font]

[font=&quot]And people become honest.[/font]

[font=&quot]I let go of economics,[/font]

[font=&quot]And people become prosperous.[/font]

[font=&quot]I let go of religion,[/font]

[font=&quot]And people become serene.[/font]

[font=&quot]I let go of all desire for common good,[/font]

[font=&quot]And the good becomes as common as grass.” [/font]

[font=&quot]Some might wonder what could possibly lead a man to believe this, yet others see logic in his writings. However, it cannot be ignored that Lao Tzu spent his life inside of a palace in [/font][font=&quot]China[/font][font=&quot], and never once was charged with governing a body of people. His ideals and beliefs have been used by innumerous people in [/font][font=&quot]Asia[/font][font=&quot] as a guideline for their personal lives, attracted by its teachings of serenity and peace. However, no successful Taoist governments have come into existence that were remembered. While a noble theoretical governing system, it is not likely that Taoism as a form of government is possible. [/font]

[font=&quot] [/font]

[font=&quot]Secondly, Machiavellian government is less of a concrete form of government, and more of an act of basing one’s leadership upon the teachings of Niccolo Machiavelli in his book, The Prince. The Prince is Machiavelli’s manual on successful, unchallenged, despotic rule over a state, dedicated to an Italian leader whom Machiavelli hoped would be capable of unifying [/font][font=&quot]Italy[/font][font=&quot] and liberating it from foreign invaders. Although he was not a ruler himself, his insightful and brilliant writing and impressive supporting historical evidence in his writing portrays how well he studied history and leadership. He promotes militaristic behavior, instilling fear in the hearts of one’s subjects, and using them as tools and weapons. Machiavelli also makes it clear that to lead according to his writings, one cannot rule based on morals and integrity. Quotes such as, “A Prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promises”, or “And it is essential to understand this: that a prince, and especially a new prince, cannot observe all those things by which men are considered good, for in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion” establish his belief in the ends justifying the means. He portrays his ideal ruler, his Prince, as a man of cunning, like a fox, strength, like a lion, intellect, wisdom, and the ability and will to rule in whatever way is necessary to keep his power absolute and his country strong. In other words, Machiavellian rulers can not allow anything, even their own morals, to stand in the way of ruling their state efficiently and supremely. [/font]

[font=&quot] [/font]

[font=&quot]Finally, now that both Machiavellian and Taoist government has been reviewed, the question of which one is superior can be discussed. Lao Tzu’s writings and philosophies contained many fallacies. As was mentioned earlier, he was never a leader, and he spent his life in the lap of luxury, in the Chinese imperial palace. [/font][font=&quot]China[/font][font=&quot]’s Emperor not governing by Taoist ideological guidelines, and there were no Taoists in history, nor were there leaders who exhibited Taoist ideals. So it is fair to say that not only did Lao Tzu have no experience in leadership or qualification to make such incredible statements about the way nature works and how leadership should work, but it can also be said that Taoism is not effective as a government form. The complacent and passive leadership it recommends would ultimately result in anarchy, and although it is possible that over a long period of time, people would naturally rise out of the chaotic anarchy and form a harmonious and peaceful society, the fact that it has yet to be proven successful in human history does not speak well for its chances. Machiavellian leadership is commonly thought of as cruel, amoral, and malicious, but Machiavelli does write that a Prince should only display cruelty in his rise to power and the beginning of his rule, and never afterwards, so that the people will fear him, but not hate him. Despite the dictatorial style of ruling and disregard for ethical behavior, Machiavellian government is altogether safer than the anarchy that Taoism could result in. Machiavelli made it clear that without the following of the people, and their respectful fear, rather than bitter contempt, the Prince cannot survive. This would ensure that a Machiavellian leader would not abuse his people excessively, and would maintain a powerful and sovereign state. Taoism, however, also encourages the toleration of invasion from other lands. Lao Tzu writes that “There is no greater illusion than fear, no greater wrong than preparing to defend yourself”, which compromises the lives of everyone in a Taoist state. Machiavellian focus on military might provides a security that so long as the people are lawful and fight for their Prince when he commands it, that they will not even have to fear him. Although Machiavellian government is not as appealing as a peaceful Taoist state, the Machiavellian state is ultimately more prosperous and safe, and thus is the better form of government.[/font]

 

[goldenviolet]

woah. i taught the different branches of the gov. in the USA. to my daughters in home schooling. again... woah. i never saw these perspectives. you write like a college aged young man too.

 

[heron]

PD, it certainly makes one think.
It brings to mind incidents where dictatorship challenged people to higher potential, and protected people from all sorts of injustices, but how freedom allowed people to bring new insights and procedures to the forefront, and rise up in responsibility themselves.

Let your readers take a breath, and break up your paragraphs.

It's clear, well organized, has a substantial thesis statement and a clear wrap-up conclusion.

 

[Paladin Dave]

Thank you both for the positive feedback. And Dee, thank you very much, but I can't take all the credit. I had an awesome teacher last year for English Composition. I am homeschooled also, but my mom has me doing "Classical Education", and I am mostly reading and reviewing essays for Lit class this year.


I had to write it in a certain format, and I edited it a LOT for the final draft, so really, the final version of this was a lot easier to take in. I just loved reading The Prince so much and hated The Tao Te Ching so much.

 

[heron]

Next paper: How to keep a Machiavellian leader from slipping and abusing his position.