Machiavelli Vs Rousseau Analysis

Machiavelli and Rousseau are in complete opposite conclusions respecting using force and fear to one’s advantage. Rousseau states, “But how to reach men’s hearts? Our present-day lawgivers, thinking exclusively in terms of coercion and punishments, pay almost no attention to that problem –for which, perhaps, material rewards are no better solution. And justice, even the purest justice, is not a solution either” (THE ISSUE POSED, 4). Rousseau believes the solution to having the obedience of men and their loyalty to the country, is discovering the power of ruling men’s hearts and instilling the love of the fatherland in their hearts. Machiavelli has a different approach and sets an example of failing to use force, evil maneuvers and authority

It had its struggles, uncertainty, risk and time consumption. Nonetheless, their designed plan and execution gave them the intention they were seeking.
If one uses integrity to execute and obtain their goal, it might become nonviable, since each person will know your true motives and plans. Another individual will have each opportunity to freeze your preparations. Nevertheless, with hypocrisy one can make an individual see what one wishes them to spot. This strategy can cause an individual’s plans to go unnoticed or disguised with other supposed or perceived matters.
However, integrity can be a great weapon as well, where one can be discerned as too honest and honorable and use this as one’s advantage in which goes back to hypocrisy within integrity. All-inclusive, hypocrisy can be viewed as a vehicle to attain one’s aim. Without it, politics today would not be able to operate smoothly. Regarding this United States, politicians speak what the general population desires to hear.
Sadly, I believe the population and enterprises participate hand in hand with hypocrisy and politics, for the reason that first, the public votes for individuals that declare what they