Response to Machiavelli and Lao-tzu

I do not agree with the ideas of Machiavelli or Lao-Tzu completely but rather believe in a combination of the two. Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu both wrote about what a how leaders should interact with their followers. Leaders come in many forms from royalty to elected officials to even parents. Machiavelli writes that "a prince must consider it of little importance if  he incurs the name of miser" and that "men are a sorry lot". This would lead one to the conclusion that Machiavelli believes leaders should determine boundaries for their followers, man is incapable of caring for itself, and that its opinions are of little importance. These beliefs agree with an authoritarian style of parenting. Authoritarian parenting is shown to lead to anxious, withdrawn, and unhappy children according to proffessor Kinzling of the University of Delaware. Lau-Tzu writes "practice not-doing, and everything will fall into place". This would lead one to the conclusion that Lao-Tzu believes leaders should not set boundaries for their followers or get involved in the affairs of followers in any way. These beliefs agree with an uninvolved style of parenting. Uninvolved parenting is shown to lead to incompetent children with low self esteem according to Diana Baumrind and other researchers. Both Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu stress the importance of the happiness of followers, but parents who follow their ideals tend to have unhappy children. However, studies done by both Baumrind and Kinzling show that authoritative parenting produces happy, competent children. Authoritative parents set boundaries for their children but let the children take part in the decision making process. This is a combinations of the ideals of both Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu.