Machiavelli's Second Treatise Of Government

*INSERT TITLE* Throughout generations, philosophers have consistently analyzed the extent of power and the most effective ways to keep it. Through this paper I will be discussing the disparities between Machiavelli and Locke’s interpretation of what the scope of power entails and the best ways to ensure that power is never taken. In Machiavelli’s, The Prince, he established an outline for princes to follow in order to secure political dominance and assure that his kingdom is protected against attack. In John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government he argues that sovereignty lies in the hands of the people, shifting from specific roles of princes discussed by Machiavelli to limited functions of government that should be in place to preserve the

He begins by setting rules on how a prince can be successful and effective. I’m sure many people during his time have asked him how he knows the ingredients of being successful, and he answers them by saying that as an observer, he is able to see the entire picture rather than only what is in front, or what princes may see. He doesn’t directly state that human beings are evil, but rather he believes that people are very simple minded and that their obedience to a ruler only depends on whether they are harmed or not. He debates, “there cannot be good laws where there are not good arms, and where there are good arms there must be good laws” (Machiavelli, 48) Meaning, that a ruler who is capable of raising and commanding a disciplined army must also be capable enough to keep his state well ordered, providing conditions that make for orderly life in society. Based on this quote, it seems Machiavelli leans more towards the government. Conveying that the government doesn’t necessarily have to be built by the people nor for the people, but rather for stability and harmony of the

Locke believes in a more equal society where the government exists ultimately to serve the commonwealth, in contrast Machiavelli believes that humans are simpleminded creatures born to follow a strong leader by incorporating fear. Machiavelli’s true intentions seem to become more evident in chapter five. He writes, “But when cities or provinces have been accustomed to live under a prince, and his bloodline is eliminated- since on the one hand they are used to obeying, and on the other they do not have the old prince- they will not agree to make one among themselves and they do not know how to live free” (Machiavelli, 21). He explicitly states that humans are mostly followers and would not be able to carry on with their lives unless someone instructs them how to do so and leaders will eventually end up following other great leaders. Unlike Locke, Machiavelli believes establishing a new government is too difficult to plan and more dangerous to manage, which conveys a message that he is somewhat satisfied with a monarchy, and further supports his argument that human beings are but simple-minded creatures unable to create such an intricate form of government. Based on these ideologies, Machiavelli has placed responsibility of