Government Vs Niccolo Machiavelli

The United States of America is a global superpower, boasting the most dominant military and strongest economy of the international community. But yet, many of the ideas imbued in this nation are the same as those penned down in Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince, written in 1513. Dedicated to the ruler of Florence, Lorenzo di Piero de’ Medici, the book advises leaders on how to conquer principalities and preserve power in said region and endorses several immoral methods. Despite differences caused by the transformation of the world after five centuries, The Prince manages to predict various aspects of America and its government. Although Machiavelli’s writings are in regards to 16th century politics, many of the concepts discussed in the political

In comparing and contrasting the governmental philosophies of the great thinkers Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli, I have found a pleasant mix of both of their ideas would be the best for America today. Lao-Tzu’s laisse-faire attitude towards the economy, as well as his small scale military is appealing to my liberal side, while Machiavelli’s attitude towards miserliness which causes low taxes appeals to the right wing. These great thinkers contradict the popular saying “all great thinkers think alike.” They have several ideas, such as taxes, that are the same, while other ideas, like the involvement of government in citizens' everyday lives are totally opposite. I shall start with

Many philosophers believe that a correct government can make a strong society. However, these philosophers do not agree on what form of government is the most “correct”. English philosopher John Locke believed that Man is inherently moral and that the purpose for government is to grant the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to its people. Another philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, however, held the belief that mankind is naturally evil and that society needs an absolute central authority to contain this evilness and grant its people with the common protection. Hobbes believes that in a state of nature, when there are no rules and everyone is granted equal power, the inherent evil impulses of Man are exposed. One

At first glance, Socrates and Machiavelli appear to have a lot in common.  They both lived in a time of political unrest and violence. They both dealt with uncertain surroundings in their societies. Most importantly, they both tried to use philosophy to improve their society. However, there was also an important difference between them. While Socrates was a moral philosopher whose goal was to search for truth and knowledge, Machiavelli was a political philosopher whose goal was to create a lasting society with a Prince that could hold power. Because of their clashing ideals, it is unlikely that Socrates would be supportive of a Machiavellian political system or Prince, though there are specific aspects of the society that Socrates would

We all know we have rights that protect us and have our government and political leaders to ensure that our rights are never violated, but what do our rights mean to others John Locke once said “Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” What does this mean? Does it mean that everyone in the world no matter what race or gender are all equal under god given right or does it mean that only Americans have this right or only those of wealth and education. Thomas Jefferson and Niccolo Machiavelli have their own idea and understanding of how people’s rights are and how they should be protected and established.

John Adams once said, “Fear is the foundation of most governments.” Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Karl Marx all grew up in a time of war and witnessed the same events that caused them to create their idea of government. Hobbes learned that people are naturally wicked, Locke learned that people all had natural rights. Karl Marx thought that the social order did not matter. All of them concluded that their governmental plan was the most reliable form of governing. They all had great ideas for government, but John Locke’s ideas would best fit today’s societies, and would best fit in with Adam’s Smith’s ideas.

Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince give the world an insight on his thought about those who rule, virtue, military power, and human nature. He elaborates on his ideal prince who must take power, but also maintain power. The Prince is extremely relevant in modern society and often looked upon as the beginning of modern political thinking. Machiavelli gives this prince an outline of the tools needed to maintain power and reinforces these ideas by giving examples of other leader’s successes and failures. Machiavelli believes that the prince must complete understand the balance between war and government. Understanding this balance and being fluent in both politics and war is crucial for maintaining power. Politicians today still use some of the tactics given by

The book The Lord of the Flies is a novel about a group of schoolboys on a plane that crashes on a deserted island. In order to survive until a ship may see them they will have to hunt and gather food, combat the all-encompassing fear of a Beast that lives somewhere on the island with them. But above that they must learn to cooperate with each other for the benefit of themselves. Throughout the book several different types of philosophies of government are tested, without anyone really knowing it. One such philosophy is one of Niccolo Machiavelli. This philosophy questioned whether it was better to be feared or loved as a ruler. He does say that the leader has a more level footing if they rule by fear, but a better, preferable,

Niccolo Machiavelli and John Locke are, in simple terms, two vastly different kinds of people. They were separated by nearly two centuries, and lived in two different countries. Despite their contradictions on sovereignty, both Locke and Machiavelli shared a primary concern- the betterment of society.

Nowadays, it is politically impossible to commit to paper a "training guide" for leaders. There are innumerable detractors to any possible stance or strategy a leader might adopt. As a result of this, all "training" must take place behind closed doors, far from the prying eyes and ears of the news media or the public. But this has not always been the case.

     During Machiavelli’s time, society was much different than it had been for previous philosophers. Instead of storing up good works, so as to enjoy paradise, as the medieval man did, the Renaissance man was interested in all things, enjoyed life, strove for worldly acclaim and wealth, and had a deep interest in classical civilizations. He was born at a time of conflict within Florence, Italy, between the republican leaders and the family of the Medici’s, of which the Machiavelli’s, especially, had a history of opposition towards. After years of conflict between powers, Machiavelli was exiled from his country.

In secular democracies, power is necessarily derived from the will of the governed. That power is then entrusted to a leader, who Machiavelli would understand to be a "prince". Inherently, his book, The Prince, has been close at hand for most politicians for centuries, as it provides general, historically proven advice for principalities and republics on how to govern and maintain relations with their most important resource and the very core of their power, which would be the people themselves.

Relying on the needs of the society of that time, Machiavelli comes to the conclusion that the most important task is the formation of a single Italian state (Machiavelli 15). Developing his thoughts, the author comes to the following inference: only a prince can become a leader capable of leading people and building a unified state. It is not a concrete historical personality but someone abstract, symbolic, possessing such qualities that in the aggregate are inaccessible to any living ruler. That is why Machiavelli devotes most of his research to the issue of what qualities should the prince possess to fulfill the historical task of developing a new state. The written work is constructed strictly logically and objectively. Even though the image of an ideal prince is abstract, Machiavelli argues that he should be ruthless, deceiving, and selfish.

Niccoló Machiavelli is perhaps the greatest political thinker in history. He was a historian, musician, a poet, and he wrote comedies. He liked poetry as much as he liked philosophy. Machiavelli wrote and collected poems. His works, which are inspired by his life experiences, have been read by many of the worlds greatest politicians. Niccoló Machiavelli’s writing was influenced by the Medici family, the Soderini government in Italy, and his own diplomatic career. His great work, The Prince, is legendary for its impact in politics and its controversial proposals.

It is fundamentally important to preface the discussion hosted in this essay by addressing ourselves to the most mundane question-why consider Machiavelli in the context of philosophy, least of all, political philosophy? This question dominates any philosophical inquiries of the Machiavelli’s political ideologies. Put differently, do the contributions by Niccolò Machiavelli to the various salient discourses in the Western thought, most notably political theory, meet the requisite standard models of academic philosophy? Machiavelli essentially seems not to consider himself a philosopher. In fact, he overtly disapproved of any philosophical inquiries into his works. In addition, his credentials do not qualify him to be properly admitted within the realm of philosophy (NeDermAN, 2002).