Here are some edits:
> ifyou give evil nothing to oppose to it will disappear
"if there is nothing to oppose evil" / "if evil encounters no opposition"
> One of Machiavelli's mostcontroversial statements is “A man who wishes to make a vocation of being goodat all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good.”
> If Lau-tzo wereto respond to this respond he would strongly agree.
> Lau-tzo believes that ifyou give evil nothing to oppose to it will disappear on its own.
Your third sentence is actually not that similar to your first one.
In the first sentence, Machiavelli is saying good people will suffer because of the bad people around them.
In the third, Lau-Tzu is saying if there is no good, there will be no evil (i.e. if there are no good people, there will be no bad people).
> one promises to something for the world
one promises to do something for the world
> This statement is irrelevant, simply being thatthere is no such thing as good or bad people.
Which statement is irrelevant?
> Everyone seems to feel that whatit is they do is for a good cost.
This statement is confusing.
Did you mean "cause" when you wrote "cost"?
Anyway, I'm sorry for giving you such detailed comments!
Hope they were helpful.
Good luck, and remember - write a lot, receive a lot of feedback and read a lot - that is the only way to be a great writer!