Machiavellian Politics

[Hegel]

Did Machiavelli have it right in his <i\>The Prince<\i>? Are humans really bad people that should be controlled by a strong government? Should a government do whatever it takes for the good of its people?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Hegel
Did Machiavelli have it right in his [i]The Prince[\i]? Are humans really bad people that should be controlled by a strong government? Should a government do whatever it takes for the good of its people?

Yes and no. Who is to decide what is for the good of its people?

[Dancing David]

No, a government should try to act well, despite the temptation to do 'what is best for the people'.

There was like this austrian guy, and he like became German Chancellor for life and he did all these evil things because he thought they were good for the people.

[Shinytop]

In this country we have a contract with our government that sets out very precisely what it can and cannot do. It is called the Constitution. Unfortunately we have long since ignored Amendment 10 and the government is pretty much doing what it wants.

[jj]

Is there any other kind ( of successful politics other than Machivallian)?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by jj
Is there any other kind ( of successful politics other than Machivallian)?

Good point that realpolitik is where the action takes place, but for example, was there something better our government could have done than destabalize Chile?

The effort is important, but the mens are importants as well. I understand what lead to the Korean War, I don't really understand the political benefit to the Vietnam War, unless it was to bring China to the table.

[jj]

Originally posted by Dancing David
The effort is important, but the mens are importants as well. I understand what lead to the Korean War, I don't really understand the political benefit to the Vietnam War, unless it was to bring China to the table.

Well, I said "successful politics" so I think perhaps you can put 'nam into a different catagory, eh?:rub:

[fhios]

Originally posted by Hegel
Did Machiavelli have it right in his <i\>The Prince<\i>? Are humans really bad people that should be controlled by a strong government? Should a government do whatever it takes for the good of its people?

Y'know, in some ways, Machiavelli was pro-democracy. He did say that a people who are used to living under their own laws will always be ready to rebel against a prince to get that privellege back. That sounds like he saw the power of our ideas of government without realizing it, no?

[Michael Redman]

In The Prince, Machiavelli didn't say that people have to be ruled by stong government. He said that Princes have to rule by strong government.I WILL leave out all discussion on republics, inasmuch as in another place I have written of them at length, and will address myself only to principalities. In doing so I will keep to the order indicated above, and discuss how such principalities are to be ruled and preserved. He wasn't talking about republics. The nature of man requires a Prince to act strongly if he wants to keep absolute power. That doesn't mean that a republic has to do the same.

Has anyone read what Machiavelli wrote about republics? The only thing I have read by him other than The Prince was a play, La Mandragola.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Michael Redman

Has anyone read what Machiavelli wrote about republics? The only thing I have read by him other than The Prince was a play, La Mandragola.

Machiavelli wrote a commentary on Livy’s History of Rome. I only got through about 10% of it, since it was quite dull. But it is quite apparent from it that Machiavelli favored a republican government over the totalitarian system of the Medici’s. In fact, the Medici’s put him in prison and tortured him.

The Prince was not about ideals. It was only about the grim realties of the time in which it was written. Unfortunately, it is still an accurate description of how people respond to their leaders:

http://www.the-prince-by-machiavelli.com/the-prince/the_prince_chapter_16.html


COMMENCING then with the first of the above-named characteristics, I say that it would be well to be reputed liberal (generous, tolerant). Nevertheless, liberality exercised in a way that does not bring you the reputation for it, injures you; for if one exercises it honestly and as it should be exercised, it may not become known, and you will not avoid the reproach (blame) of its opposite. Therefore, any one wishing to maintain among men the name of liberal is obliged to avoid no attribute of magnificence; so that a prince thus inclined will consume in such acts all his property, and will be compelled in the end, if he wish to maintain the name of liberal, to unduly weigh down his people, and tax them, and do everything he can to get money. This will soon make him odious (being hated) to his subjects, and becoming poor he will be little valued by any one; thus, with his liberality, having offended many and rewarded few, he is affected by the very first trouble and imperilled by whatever may be the first danger; recognizing this himself, and wishing to draw back from it, he runs at once into the reproach of being miserly (stingy, greedy).


One thing to be aware of is that translations of The Prince vary somewhat. The version I have discusses the archaic nature of Machiavelli’s political vocabulary. Most notable was the part about the “ends justifies the means.” They found it to be an oversimplified version of what he intended.

The translation above is not the one I have at home. In fact, the one above is a bit weak in terms of sentence structure.

[fhios]

Originally posted by Doubt


Machiavelli wrote a commentary on Livy’s History of Rome. I only got through about 10% of it, since it was quite dull. But it is quite apparent from it that Machiavelli favored a republican government over the totalitarian system of the Medici’s. In fact, the Medici’s put him in prison and tortured him.

The Prince was not about ideals. It was only about the grim realties of the time in which it was written. Unfortunately, it is still an accurate description of how people respond to their leaders:

http://www.the-prince-by-machiavelli.com/the-prince/the_prince_chapter_16.html



One thing to be aware of is that translations of The Prince vary somewhat. The version I have discusses the archaic nature of Machiavelli’s political vocabulary. Most notable was the part about the “ends justifies the means.” They found it to be an oversimplified version of what he intended.

The translation above is not the one I have at home. In fact, the one above is a bit weak in terms of sentence structure.

I have read Machiavelli, or at least translations of his books The Prince and The Art of War. The second is something only for those with an overwhelming interest in military science. It concerns itself with the finance and administration of armies, but conceives and inspects the options for doing so only in terms of the rather clumsy ideas of the time. I can only say two good things for this book: it is vastly more readable than Baron DiJomini's work of the same name, and it apparently does not suffer in translation to anywhere near the same degree as Sun Tsu's book, also of that name. In regards to The Prince though, that book is nowhere near as scary or conclusive as people usually suppose. It is simply so much advice, with a few supportive examples, to a leader, and as an attempt to summarize experience, it is not within the realm of philosophy or any other sort of theory, and it is also personal, and therefore doubtable as anything more than a set of ideas worthy of consideration rather than a group of final conclusions.