Sein Aung
Professor Teddy Chocos
English 102
October 2, 2012
Flexible but Strict
Nobody have the perfect solution, but only solution with the least drawback.
Let’s take the two top famous philosopher who written their solution about world, life
and leading for example. Firstly Niccolo Machiavelli from the west, he is an Italian
philosopher (1469-1527) who wrote his masterpiece “The prince”, to gain the favor of
the Medici hoping to return to politics, unfortunately he did not succeed, but after it
exposed to the public he became famous since then. Last but not least, Lao-Tzu (BC
400) from the east, who became famous after writing “Tao Te Ching” for how should
China govern the country when every one is fighting to united the country in a golden
age of Chinese political though. They both have the so call “Perfect solution” that
spread across the world for thousands of year. Till now their book has been translated
to almost every language, any educated person will probably know them and till now
people are still having the “agree and disagree” thoughts about their idea.
They are both famous till now is because their idea is very outstanding,
remarkable, and their certainness towards their idea. People are now still
remembering them is because their idea is very discussable. The pros and cons in their
idea are evenly right. When people think about the positive side of their though is
right, but come and think about the negative side of the idea, which is equally make
sense too. So that makes it very arguable for people to think about. No doubt they are
famous mainly because they have great ideas. Certainly there is hidden mistake in
them too.
The reason I picked Tao-Tzu and Machiavelli to compare is simply because
they both have totally opposite direction of thinking about life and thoughts. For LaoTzu, his idea is commonly known as unrealistic, but “if” it goes right, it will be
continuously be right since the first day of civilization. His idea is to reduce
government’s power, let the natural govern the country. If there is war, let there be
war. If there is united, let it be united. Because he believes that if no action should be
apply on society there will be no crimes and all will be good because human is pure
from the very start. For Machiavelli is a totally different direction. He believes that
you must use force to gain control and power. He believes that it’s better to be feared
than to be loved by saying “On Cruelty and Mercy and Weather it is better to be
Loved than to be Feared or the Contrary”, his idea way too towards merciless and
forceful. He believes that a morally good person will no remain long in any high
position, because he believes that people are not good, just opposite what Lao-Tzu
think.
Both Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli are way too fixed in their own though. Which
means that they are too right and too wrong. They are right because of their
certainness, and that certainness is the main thing that lures us to believe what they
believe in. They wrong also because they are too certain and fixed in their own idea.
They have full their idea in their mind, just like a filled water cup. There is no more
space for new ideas for others to come in. Thus it is fixed and inflexible. What we
have to think is flexible. Great ideas are only great if the timing is right and the
situation is right. For many answer we will probably start answering with “it
depends”, because it always depend on the situation, which means you have to be
flexible with all thing. That means great ideas are great when they applied flexibly.
By not concentrating on what they specifically say but taking out their pros and
remove away the cons to make a better solution with even lesser mistakes.
Let’s combine the Lao-Tzu the natural believer and Machiavelli the force
believer together. First of all, being too forceful will always end up back firing against
your own will. We have to agree it, because rebellious is in human nature. Come to
think about it, since we are young, the more our parents stop us from smoking,
alcohol, and drugs the more curiosity it builds in us. The more serious they stop us
from doing what we should not do, the more we wanted to try it. The stricter the
parents are, the more rebel the children will be. The stricter the government is, the
more riots will occur. Does not means that we could not restrict people from doing
what they are not suppose to do for their own good. It is partly because human is
attracted to new and fresh things and mainly because of rebelliousness. Getting bored
of old X-box, getting bored of old hair style, getting bored of same life style, getting
bored of eating the same food, even look at our daily life, we are doing different
things every day. We watch movie, we work, we study different subject, and we eat 3
different type of meal in a day and for that we cannot blame or control.
The main problem is rebellious. Level of rebellious rises because the parents
simply say no without reason and government set rules with shallow reasons. By
explaining to them why they should not do this or that in details and clear to let them
know why and the rebellious will decrease dramatically compare to the way by
simply saying no and setting rules. For example let’s say illegal drugs, both parents
and government do restrict them seriously. Parents simply say no it is bad, no it is bad
and repeatedly no it is bad and yet I rarely heard the parents saying no it is bad
because it kills your brain cells, it make you go dumb, and it is bad for your health.
But the question will follow by asking why do people play drug. If that’s the case you
have to explain it to them too. People play drug because they have satisfaction, and
they get happy. In exchange of that you have to pay for the cost of drug and your
healthy self. Only after these explanations let the nature decide, let them decide.
Not always is the case of the benefit of people that restrictions and rules are set.
Sometimes it is the benefit of the ruler who set it. A good leader should never act for
his own good instead of people. At this point, both Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli come to
a point that is slightly common and it is the best to combine them to make the most
effective ruler.
To become a good leader you must “Act for the people’s benefit”(Lao-Tzu) and
people who act for other’s benefit will always suffer. Therefore the good leader
should suffer. The good leader “goes out with his soldiers and lives by looting,
sacking and ransoms”(Machiavelli) will “be followed by his troops” and will gain
respect and good reputation. Thus people follow this type of leader. They know that
the leader is working hard for their better life; therefore citizen will automatically
make lesser crime and volunteer to work for the country to become better. Leader
reject or donate the pay that he suppose to get is a leader that truly work for the sake
of other’s good. No people want to pay their tax to a miser. A good leader work for
the citizen, a good country both citizen and ruler work for it.
People always say a generous leader is a good leader, because they can only get
advantage from generous leader. People always think for themselves first but not
other. People did not think that a generous citizen would make a better country then a
generous leader do. It’s a mindset that people always expect generosity from the
leader not from citizen. Why not generous citizens and generous leader, and that will
make a world with full of love and caring. But that is closer to Lao-Tzu’s thought.
That happens only with “if”.
Let’s back to reality. Generosity is good but not always, only when it’s needed.
Because when you are being too generous people tend to take advantage of you. “For
a man who wishes to make a vocation of being good at all times will come to ruin
among so many who are not good. Hence it is necessary for a (Leader) who wishes to
maintain his position to learn not to be good, and to use this knowledge or not to use it
according to necessity” (Machiavelli). To become a good leader you must know when
to use your cruelty and generosity. When people make crimes, do apply punishment
no matter how important the person is or who the person is related to accordingly to
the law. When people volunteer or do good for the country, do reward them
accordingly to their contributions.
A great leader should know generosity, strict, equality, knowledge, integrity,
dedication, magnanimity, openness, flexible, assertiveness and etc. A million words
cannot complete to show how to become a good leader, but simply a leader must be
“flexible and strict” towards the people for the sake of their good.