For class, we read two readings, and I think that Confucius was a better leader than Han Fei-Tzu because Confucius showed how government should be ran. And that his views on government should be ran with only good intentions. He also said that majority of the government officials are for their own well being that looking out for the citizens of that area. And that's why government was created to watch over the people in there best way to protect.
Han Fei-Tzu on the other hand, looks down on the citizens that are beinging governed. Han Fei-Tzu also does not rely on the citizens for their own good-will. He also believes that an average of a person isn't smart enough to make huge decisions like what the government does. So I think that he doesn't have faith in his cit zens that live in his country. He also put laws down on his country because he didn't want them to have full actions.
These are two totally different ways to run a government they are completely opposites of one and another. Confucius believed that the government should be ran with good intentions for a good place for all the citizens and Han Fei-Tzu believed that the government should decide what actions they were going to do. And what kinds of law should be put in place to be in their government. Is one of these methods more efficient than the other? They are both to totally different systems but they both seem successful and thrive. Example: In America we have laws that we have to do, but it is for are own good. I think that in order to run a good government their has to be a balance. If there isn't a balance, one side may tip over board. In governments ran now the good balanced ones are still running strong, but like in Egypt the government is falling into deep water.
No comments:
Post a Comment