Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Machiavelli on government
Machiavelli on government
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In a work written by Machiavelli called The Prince, there are many ideas he believes should be part of a government. The United States today is a Federal Republic. This means that it is a “federation of states that have a republican form of government”. Being a republican government means that the power of the country lies with the people and their elected representatives. This essay will be tackling the topic of whether or not the ideas that Machiavelli stated should or should not be implemented into our own system of government today. The first topic that will be tackled is whether or not a leader, or country, should be stingy. For this topic Machiavelli was said that if his “economy makes his income adequate… he can carry through enterprises …show more content…
What Machiavelli is saying in this quote is that at the beginning it may seem like the leader is being stingy because he is taxing his people but at the end of the road when troubles come the leader will have the money from being stingy to help pay for all the work that will be done to get out of the situation that they are in. Another thing that Machiavelli says is “as you practice it… to escape poverty” (Cunningham 35). What Machiavelli means here is that one reason you would practice liberality is to escape poverty. I think that this idea should be implemented into own government because it was proven to work in our country’s past. In the article Which Strategy Really Ended the Great Depression by Burton Folsom he says, “Yes, government would need to run large deficits, but economic stability was society’s reward” (Folsom 1). The Great Depression was a devastating period of time for America. Since the country was out of money, the government used its money to get the economy back up and running so the country could go back to how it was before the depression. If Machiavelli’s idea is implemented into our government then we will be able to get out of another …show more content…
For this topic Machiavelli says, “A wise price, then, is not troubled about a reproach for cruelty by which he keeps his subjects united and loyal” (Cunningham 35). Here Machiavelli is saying that being cruel is fine as long as the people under him are still under his control. This idea that Machiavelli presents should not be implemented into our government because it would make other nations view us like we view North Korea. In the article Why Do North Koreans Hate Us? By Mehdi Hasan, he refers to the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un as a “brutal and sadistic” leader. Although the country itself may be under his rule it does not mean that all the countries around him will think of him the same as the people under him. Another thing that Machiavelli says is, “those executions that come from the prince harm individuals only” (Cuningham 35). This is also not true because an article from the death penalty information center says that “Nearly 78% of those surveyed said that having the death penalty in a state does not lower the murder rate”. This proves that for the majority even if there is a death penalty it does not lower the chances for crime occurring. The fear factor of the penalty is
Machiavelli’s, “The Prince” is the ideal book for individuals intending to both govern and maintain a strong nation. Filled with practical advice, he includes numerous religious references to support his claims. He devotes a chapter within the book to speak about the ancient founders of states. In the chapter called, “On new principalities that are acquired by one’s own arms and by virtue”, Machiavelli discussed the importance of a prince to have their own talent in governing a nation, rather than having relied on fortune to rule. The latter is a risk no leader should take and he cited past leaders as a guide for both the current and future princes.
Machiavelli believes that a government should be very structured, controlled, and powerful. He makes it known that the only priorities of a prince are war, the institutions, and discipline. His writings describes how it is more important for a prince to be practical than moral. This is shown where he writes, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" (47). In addition, Machiavelli argues that a prince may have to be cunning and deceitful in order to maintain political power. He takes the stance that it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. His view of how a government should run and his unethical conduct are both early signs of dictatorship.
Machiavelli’s views were drastically different from other humanists at his time. He strongly promoted a secular society and felt morality was not necessary but stood in the way of a successfully governed state. He stated that people generally tended to work for their own best interests and gave little thought to the well being of the state. He distrusted citizens saying, “In time of adversity, when a state is in need of its citizens, there are few to be found.” In his writings in The Prince, he constantly questioned the citizens’ loyalty and warned for the leaders to be wary in trusting citizens. His radical and distrusting thoughts on human nature were derived out of concern for Italy’s then unstable government. Machiavelli also had a s...
An effective leader is one that understands that a society must evolve and revolutionize, in order to meet the needs of the state that are of immediate concern. As a society we are able to build off prior knowledge of once existing methods of living, and adjust them to meet current demands. Both Thomas Hobbes, and Nicolo Machiavelli’s concept, and perception of an ideal sovereign remains present in current forms of government. Machiavelli’s ideas in The Prince indicate that it is simple for any civilian to gain, and maintain power
Machiavelli's realization of the penultimate import of the people is probably most significant reason his book holds so much influence on realpolitik. He writes, "it is essential for a prince to possess the good will and affections his people, otherwise he will be utterly without support in time of adversity." (Chapter 9). Clearly, Machiavelli understands the source of power within a princely republic lay with the people, whom the prince must constantly court. No other political philosopher before him had ever given much significance to those being governed. The reason that Machiavelli felt that the subjects were vital to the prince maintaining his rule was because the implications of earning the hatred and ill will of the people are dire for the political future of both the state and the prince. Of the two sources of attack the prince must fear, one is a conspiracy from within inspired by the hatred of the people (Chapter 19). Additionally, the prince must be aware that actions of his intermediaries can reflect upon himself. That is, if his army is cruel and brutish towards the people, the people will turn their hatred upon the prince, who is seen to tacitly condone the actions of the army. ...
As he begins to conclude, Machiavelli states that the prince: “should think about avoiding those things which make him hated and despised.” (Mach 48) Although these lack any withstanding moral values, they are effective in the sense that they better serve their purpose. Machiavelli was seeking to display a way to hold political power by any means possible not a utopian state. This may mean malicious acts, imprisonment, and torture, or it may mean the utilization of power to achieve a common good. Machiavelli doesn’t elaborate on this. He concentrates on a realistic approach towards government, as he remains concerned with the establishment and protection of power.
Is the purpose of government today, similar to that of philosophers of the past, or has there been a shift in political thought? This essay will argue that according to Machiavelli’s The Prince, the purpose of government is to ensure the stability of the state as well as the preservation of the established ruler’s control, and that the best form of government should take the form of an oligarchy. In contrast, in his book, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes argues that the purpose of government should be to preserve the peace and security of men and, that the best form of government would be an absolute monarchy which would sanction such conditions. This essay will utilize themes of glory, material advantage, peace and stability to illustrate
Niccolo Machiavelli, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill present three distinct models of government in their works The Prince, Second Treatise of Government, and Utilitarianism. From an examination of these models it is possible to infer their views about human nature and its connection to the purpose of government. A key to comparing these views can be found in an examination of their ideas of morality as an intermediary between government and human nature. Whether this morality must be inferred from their writings or whether it is explicitly mentioned, it differs among the three in its definition, source, and purpose.
Only a person who thinks that man is evil would think of such ways to run a government in the way that Machiavelli thought a government should be operated. Machiavelli felt that “crafty and deceitful princes have historically defeated the faithful princes”(Prince). What happened to the idea of a caring leader, one who could be trusted to make decisions that the majority of the people agreed with? I do not agree with Machiavelli that a leader should be deceitful in order to for his country to succeed or grow. I think that what a leader is depends on what type of man you are good or evil.
Throughout Machiavelli’s novel, we encounter several specific instances in which the author gives explicit advice to would be or currently serving princes and rulers of nations. Much of this advice can be easily translated to world leaders in the present day, including the President of the United States. However, some of the advice that Machiavelli gives out are things that often times don’t apply to current world leaders. As I explore the novel, I can’t help but imagine several real life politicians using some of the methods of ruling discussed by Machiavelli, with the true of definition of Machiavellianism being “the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct.”
First, Machiavelli’s method attempts to discard discussion of the “imaginary” political world and instead focuses on “real life” (Machiavelli 48). His end goal is to construct rubric for leaders to follow either to rule and unite (in this case Italy) in the Prince or create a powerful republic in the Discourses. His method is derived from comparing contemporary and historical events to illustrate and substantiate his argument. He is critical of how people interpret history (Machiavelli 83). He still believes that his ability to interpret and compare history is superior. Arguing that his methodological approach doesn’t just “chew” on history but actually “tastes” it (Machiavelli 83). Therefore we can understand that he justifies his method approach as not being akin to most because he possesses a much deeper understanding of history. Throughout his two books using ...
For all of Machiavelli’s ruthlessness and espousal of deceit, he knew the value of authenticity and relying on his administration. A true leader cannot achieve greatness alone. Machiavelli says that the prince is the state, and the state is the prince. This means that whatever vision and principles the leader holds in the highest regard, they must be known to the state so that they can be realized. He believed that no matter how a prince was elected, his success would depend largely on his ministers. Collaboration between a prince and ministers would create an atmosphere of harmony and camaraderie, highly reducing the chances of rebellion. Without the support and cooperation of the people, military action is not possible, expansion is not possible and most importantly, governance is not possible. If a leader does not satisfy the needs of the people, they have the power to overthrow him through strength in numbers. Thus, a leader depends just as much on the people as they do on him. A leader must be able to convince the people to buy into his visio...
Therefore, a ideal leader would control every aspect of the state. Such a leader would put in effect policies that would benefit his self interests such as, gaining, maintaining, and expanding his political power. Also, it states that a leader should not allow morality and virtues to get in the way of leading. Machiavelli believes that moral and virtue are merely products of the imagination and should be discarded. It even states that a man who desires to act virtuously in every way will come to grief among those who are not virtuous.
Society has recognized that in order to maintain direction, a line must be drawn between those who govern and those who are governed. Although governors appear to be in charge, ultimately, they are just mere delegators. The power lays in the hands of the people; however, due to the fact that the grip on that power is loose, the people are easy to give it away. Using Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince, and Erasmus’ Praise of Folly, this essay will argue that the governed collectively have more jurisdiction than governors, which causes governors to attempt to minimize the people’s power, in order to strengthen their own.
Machiavelli’s The Prince was written more than 500 years ago and it is “one of the most influential and controversial books published in Western literature.” (Article A) It was about Machiavelli’s political philosophies and the basic principles of what he believes a politician or “prince” should be. The three main ideas of the Prince were “Liberality and Stinginess”, “Cruelty and Mercy: Is It Better to Be Loved Than Feared, or the Reverse?”, and “How a Prince Should Keep Their Promises” and for the most part many of his concepts should or are already instilled in our government.