On the issue of admiration Machiavelli states that a prince ideally should be loved and feared, but it is more important that he be feared. It is more likely that his citizens would be loyal to him if they feared him. I believe that the true nature of man has not changed since Machiavelli’s time. I think that most modern governments still employ many of his general principals for ruling. Laws and punishment are necessary to prevent people from committing crimes.
5. In Chapter 20, what three bits of advice does Machiavelli give the prince? He says it’s necessary to arm your subjects because it will make them loyal and protect the prince. Another bit of advice is that you become greater by defeating your enemies. One last piece of advice is that fortresses depend on the situation.
Claudius as a Machiavellian Prince. The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, is a ‘how-to-guide’ for individuals on the quest for power. It teaches of attaining positions of power and maintaining them. Machiavelli diverts from the divine christian incorruptibility stance on leadership to a more mortal and realistic one. In his view, the end to political instability justifies the means no matter how shady they may be.
According to Machiavelli, being praised mustn’t concern a prince who wishes to continue ruling. In the book The Prince, Machiavelli noted that “A man who wishes to make a vocation of being good at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good”(40). A successful prince has two kinds of traits- praiseworthy and despicable, the latter of the two must not cause him hatred. The prince must present himself as an honest man, while using his vices. A good example of a modern day Machiavellian prince is America’s 43rd president, George W Bush, from the moment that Bush decided to run for President, his staff has fabricated an image of George W as a successful CEO, an avid Christian, effective governor, and all-around nice guy.
It also stressed the political role of the independent landowner and warned against the tendency of political power to encroach upon liberty. A republic demanded a virtuous citizenry and thus a high moral code to ensure continued freedom. The founders thought that luxury, factionalism, and other vices were ever-present dangers, seeds of destruction that lurked in the souls of their fellow citizens and within themselves. (1) Additionally, a man's investment in luxuries signaled to his fellow Americans that he might support the ideas of aristocracy and monarchy instead of republicanism. Therefore republicanism called for thriftiness, simplicity and plainness in all things, be it fashion or food.
s Machiavelli was a man who spoke truth; a man who believed he knew what qualities makes a powerful prince. He believes he knew the formula on how to be nice, yet not be taken advantage of; how to keep his soldiers ready at all time; and how to control his fear, yet instill fear in his enemy’s and the belief that a ruler justified in using any means to stay in power. If Niccolo Machiavelli ideology were compared to modern leadership, one could detect scandals, power of deception, and the need to maintain a superpower, in former president: George W. Bush. During his presidency, Bush conducted himself in a deceptive manner. Bush was a man who steps into his presidency with a strut; yet, from the moment he was sworn in there has been chaos.
A man has an obligation to act according to the commands of his conscience, even if it goes against majority opinion, the reigning leadership, or the laws of society. In cases where the government supports unjust laws Thoreau's idea of service to one's country ironically takes the form of resistance against it. Resistance is the highest form of patriotism because it demonstrates a desire not to overthrow government but to build a better one in the long term. Thoreau just wants to eliminate the ideas that make it a bad government not the entire government itself. Thoreau then talks about the issue of change through democratic ways.
Gilgamesh has been wrongfully inducted into the idea of what a hero, leader, and king should be. Honestly, who would want to live under a man lacking so much in character? Heroic leaders come in all sizes, from Napoleon Bonaparte to Abraham Lincoln. It is not the size or physical strength that matters, but the ability to be a noble and just leader. Gilgamesh took advantage of his position as a king by abusing his power to exercise “jus primae noctis.” Wettlaufer, the author of one analytical view of the
The state assumes that it has power over individuals, which a view blights human freedom as was expressed by Proudhon ‘to be governed is to be inspected by creatures who neither have the right nor virtue to do so’. Liberals on the over hand do not view the state in such an pessimistic way, however believe that if the state was so have too much power it could indeed become oppressive and tyrannic thus threatening the sovereign individual: something that liberals heavily endorse. Therefore, liberals argue for a minimum ‘night watchman’ state (Nozick). This essay will argue that the state is not an oppressive body but instead a paternal figure, which serves to protect individuals more than it oppresses them. It can be argued from the anarchist perspective that the state is an oppressive body, which undermines human reason and the capacity for self governance.
As he states, the defensive realism of Kenneth Waltz finds it imprudent for states to search for global hegemony “because the system will punish them if they attempt to gain too much power” (Mearsheimer, 2001, p73). Since the question of power is not answered by the defensive theory, interest shifts towards the other model. Accordingly, offensive realism finds it admissible to certify that survival is the ultimate goal, and power is just the tool (measurable) to ensure that end is fully realized: “The argument is not that conquest or domination is good in itself, but instead that having overwhelming power is the best way to ensure one’s own survival. For classical realists, power is an end in itself; for structural realists, power is a means to an end and the ultimate end is survival.” (Mearsheimer, 2001, p74). That is why Mearsheimer sustains that USA will be ultimately forced to react to China’s rise in the future.