The writing of Lao Tzu and Machiavelli could not be more different in its primary advice to rulers. Where Machiavelli focuses on the personal power and reputation of the ruler, Tzu recommends forswearing personal desire. Likewise where Machiavelli recommends warfare as an ideal way to secure alliances, wealth, and power, Tzu supports policies which are least likely to lead to war and considers warfare to be a sign that the leader is weak. What is truly fascinating about these two rulers, however, is that though they approach the art of princedom from radically different directions, they both at least agree on the basic goal of government, which is in "its securing good order," (Lao Tzu, Ch. 8). This goal, which both Tzu and Machiavelli share, is to the latter's way of thinking achieved through force of law and of arms in support of a single man's ambition, while to the former it is achieved through minimalizing both law and arms and forsaking ambition.

             The difference between these two is clear from the outset, and typified by their different approaches to military power. Lao Tzu claims that "he who (relies on) the strength of his forces does not conquer." (ch 76) This idea is held through-out his writings, as he tries to get across the counter-intuitive proposition that the best action is inaction and the best wisdom is an admittance of ignorance. The Tao-te Ching in general takes a highly minimalistic approach to personal life, to the role of rulers, and to the concept of law and military orders. Whereas Machiavelli claims that "The chief foundations of all states, new as well as old or composite, are good laws and good arms; and as there cannot be good laws where the state is not well armed, it follows that where they are well armed they have good laws," (ch. 12) Lao Tzu actually suggests that both arms and laws should be limited in scope. He suggests that "When the Tao prevails in the world, they send back their swift horses to (draw) the dung-carts.