Methods of Government, explained by Mr. Lao Tzu

Mr. Lao Tzu,I am glad to make unnecessary this earn to you and I wish you to stay in sound health. Being myself provoke in the art of state governance I could not rat to be moved by your stunnedstanding musical compositions. Philosophers with such profound views as you get hold of are rare, so, desiring to further dis devotee certain ideas about politics and administration I have found nothing give out than to carry through this letter to you and thusly invite you to discussion. Please accept this letter calmly as it is due to a philosopher, for I have not wished to passage of arms your wisdom, save only to share some views which I have obtained via farsighted years of struggles and dangers. My most sincere desire is to have an advice with you because truth is flash in discussion. Thereto let me pass to my argument.In your famous Tao Te Ching you writeIf you want to be a great leader, you must learn to spend the Tao. Stop trying to control. Let go of fixed plans and concepts, and the world ordain govern itself1.I admire this argument but I put it in a little former(a) way for I recover that it is better to be adventurous than cautious, because fortune is a woman, and she needs to be beaten and dominated2. That what you call Tao I use to call Fortune. Fortune is something what we canful not control, but we can benefit from it. Every swayer has a Fortune, but not all of them are fortunate, because some of them are commensurate to benefit from fortune and others are not. And to benefit from Fortune ane has to olfactory modality it and take effort to obtain every contingent necessary go forth from lucky regular(a)ts. Thats why I say that Fortune make dos fresh. The young can better feel it and they are faster in victimization it. Using your terms I can say, that Tao flows by itself outside of our will. The iodin who feels the flow of Tao and moves with it will win3. But in order to win he has to move in the direction he needs only uti lize Tao because in case he moves with Tao he will lose his ram of sight and will be a pris hotshotr of circumstances.Another piece of your writing which attracted my attention isIf a expanse is governed with tolerance, the people are comfort fitted and honest. If a country is governed with repression, the people are depressed and crafty. When the will to power is in charge, the higher the i plentifulnesss, the lower the results. Try to make people happy, and you lay the al-Qaeda for misery. Try to make people moral, and you lay the groundwork for vice.4I deem with you entirely that a rule is always an example for his subjects, however, I would manage to notice, that ruling only by example is a much also vague basis for power. There are always people who do not accept any virtues and who are willing to overthrow even the most perfect ruler, at least to take his stead. So I think that except for example a ruler is to inspire erotic love and fear to the people, and at that fe ar is more important than love, because love is chatoyant and does not depend on rulers will, and fear is an dick which is always available for a ruler5. Moreover, I believe that a ruler is to incur evil and forget about virtues in some cases. I mean those vices without which he might hardly save the state because, if one considers everything well, one will find that something that appears a virtue, if followed, would be his ruin, and that some other thing that appears a vice, if followed, results in his security and well-being6.You announce about love and fear not as of methods of ruling, but as of rulers qualities when you write that When the Master governs, the people are hardly aware that he exists. Next best is a leader who is loved. Next, one who is feared. The worst is one who is despised.7As I have already mentioned, I believe, that fear is a better foundation for power than love, but now I would like to accost exactly of the rulers qualities. To my opinion a ruler is no t to be good or bad, he is to be reasonable. What works good once can be not so good bordering time. Fortune, or Tao as you call it, whitethorn change, so the best ruler is the one who skillfully adapts to the situation and never freezes in his qualities. The ruler has to deal with different people who have different desires and so it is hardly possible for him to be same for all. A ruler has not to follow an ideal, but he is to be realistic8.You call upon princes to let things happen as they happen when you sayCenter your country in the Tao and evil will have no power. Not that it isnt there, but youll be able to step out of its way.9Let me apply a term which I am used to and call Fortune that what you call Tao. I believe that this argument is weak, because it assumes that the country is ideal. And what about the countries which are not ideal and which are not in conformity with fortune? I would compare her to one of those raging rivers, which when in flood overflows the plains, sweeping away trees and buildings, bearing away the soil from place to place everything flies before it, all yield to its violence, without being able in any way to withstand it and yet, though its nature be such, it does not follow therefore that men, when the weather becomes fair, shall not make provision, both(prenominal) with defenses and barriers, in such a manner that, rising again, the waters may pass away by canal, and their force be neither so unrestrained nor so dangerous. So it happens with Fortune, who shows her power where valour has not wide-awake to resist her, and thither she turns her forces where she knows that barriers and defences have not been raised to constrain her10. So a ruler does have to act in order to ferment his principality to perfectness and make it protected even from Fortune itself.Let me conclude my humiliated letter by this. Hope you were not bored while rendering it and you will find it possible to answer my most diminished writing.Cordiall y yours humble servant,Niccol di Bernardo dei MachiavelliWorks Cited1. Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching, 25th-Anniversary Edition, Vintage, 19972. Machiavelli. The Prince. Oxford Oxford University Press, 19983. bloody shame G. Dietz, Trapping The Prince Machiavelli and the Politics of Deception, The American semipolitical Science Review, Vol. 80, No. 3 (Sep., 1986), pp. 777-7994. David Hall, commentary on the Lao Tzu by Wang Pi by Ariane Rump, Wing-tsit Chan, Philosophy eastern and West, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Jan., 1981), pp. 97-981 Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching, 25th-Anniversary Edition, Vintage, 1997. Verse 57 2 Niccolo Machiavelli. The Prince. Oxford Oxford University Press, 1998, p.- 83 3 Lao Tzu dows not speak so directly, but it is usually mentioned by commentators. For example see David Hall, Commentary on the Lao Tzu by Wang Pi by Ariane Rump, Wing-tsit Chan, Philosophy East and West, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Jan., 1981), pp. 97-98 4 Lao Tzu, 58 5 See Niccolo Machiavelli, chap. XVII 6 Lao Tzu, 58 7 Lao Tzu , 17 8 For this Machiavellis argument see Mary G. Dietz, Trapping The Prince Machiavelli and the Politics of Deception, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 80, No. 3 (Sep., 1986), pp. 777-799 9 Lao Tzu, 60 10 Niccolo Machiavelli, p.- 119