Niccolo Machiavelli And John Locke

John Locke was perhaps one of the most influential political philosophers of the modern period. In the Second Treatise of Government, John Locke discusses the move from a state of nature and perfect freedom to a then governed society in which authority is given to a legislative and executive power. His major ideas included liberalism and capitalism, state of nature, state of war and the desire to protect one’s property.

Leadership is the most important quality for the head of any nation, or any other political leader. To be a good leader, you must have many attributes that qualify you for such a huge responsibility. There are good crisis leaders who would fail in a period of "calm." What is clear, is that leadership is a complicated concept. We have consistently found that good leaders have passion and values, confidence yet humility, knowledge and realism; Having these attributes and the ability to use them and develop them in others is the foundation for reaching goals and being successful in a leadership position. Henry David Thoreau and Niccolo Machiavelli are two men who have influenced some of the most influential people in the world, as the two were writing to different audiences, it 's easy to see why their ideologies might clash or unite; Henry Thoreau and Niccolo Machiavelli both use an abundant amount of rhetorical strategies in both of their stories, including ethos, pathos, and logos; both of the stories also have their fair share of differences.

Niccolò Machiavelli was a noticeable figure during the early sixteenth century. He is most famously recognized as the author of The Prince, a handbook for politicians which inspired the term “Machiavellian”. His writing also solidified his position as the father of modern political theory. His political view stemmed from observing the division of Italy into small city-state systems during the late fifteenth century. According to Machiavelli, the success of the city-states was dependent on the effectiveness of the autocrats who headed these states. Through observation, he saw what was necessary for an authoritarian state to be successful. He was bursting with theories, the first being that he believed that the state and its laws were a creation of man that must be protected by the prince. He also argued that conflict could be useful under the organization of a ruler. Another idea that Machiavelli strongly professed, was his thought that men are not equal. His belief was that some men

Though Locke, Machiavelli, Rousseau and Hobbes all represented varying opinions on human nature and its relationship to government, each of them contributed groundwork for present-day political theories. And while each philosopher shared common concepts in philosophy, the parallels in politics and government were quite

Human reason has been one of the guiding principles in our society since the beginning of time and because action is preceded by thought, these two go hand in hand. Every choice we make is based on our thinking process, differentiating between what is good or bad, and contemplating cause and effect. Machiavelli, Locke, and Marx all have distinct conceptions of human nature, which has led to a variety of conclusions regarding the political structures of society that still have resonance today, which goes to show how much of an impact their theories have.

While these two books had many contrasting thoughts, they did not have many agreements. For instance, both books linked their own opinions on government and how the people respond to it. In the Prince, men would turn against their leader in order to better their hope of changing their ruler. Likewise, the Second Treatise of Government suggested altering the rule of the death penalty for self defense. Both books also agreed with solving problems earlier rather than later to try and avoid the consequences. They also explain the roles of laws and the punishments that follow. Another main point both books share is the influence that the drive for preservation has on the values and choices people have. For example, Machiavelli explained how a

John Locke, Adam Smith, and Edmund Burke have several values that are illustrated by today’s society. One of these values would be conservatism. It is true that we have changed today’s society, however; have we quickly changed these values or have we slowly taken our time to introduce them? Property is another value that illustrates today’s society. We need a state in order to own property. There is no other form of regulation that will tell us who has the rights to certain properties. Lastly, and most importantly, freedom is a value that has been illustrated in the United States in several different ways. Street light tickets are an example of theses certain values and what comes with them. Conservatism is a term that means no change; you conserve what you have. Edmund Burke would agree that street light tickets are not suitable. This change disrupts the economy and causes further problems with society.

These leaders assume their respective positions in government for a specified period of time after which they return to their normal work never to serve the people again. During their tenure in the government, leaders in a republic should serve the interests of the people who elected them at the expense of their personal interests. In any state, republicanism emphasizes on several significant concepts that include dedication to serving the people, advantages of universal political participation, the negative effects of corruption, strict adherence to the rule of law, and the necessity to separate powers. From these concepts, the most significant value that stands apart in republicanism is political liberty. In this case, political liberty transcends

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both agreed that a leader or ruler was absolutely necessary for a country to succeed. Without a leader, the country would fail. They both believed a ruler should reside supreme. Hobbes thought that only one man, a king, should have the right to govern the people. One king should make the decisions, write the laws, and control the people. Locke, on the other hand, felt that the people should be the main concern of the government. He believed that the people should have a say in everything the government decided, including who ruled over the country. Locke also believed that if the government did not uphold its responsibilities, then the people had the right to overthrow the government.

The outliers of the political spectrum retain on one side, a political society without civil obedience to directives contained in human laws that devolves into lawlessness. On the opposite side, a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau each philosophically slide across this spectrum in attempting to determine liberty’s margin of error. Where the “State of Nature” enacts liberty as a right to self-preservation, attempting to formulate the functional line between “the Right of Nature” and “the Right of the Sovereign” . For Thomas Hobbes, his worldview consisted of a violent place, with men as sordid and erratic masses,

Locke, Marx and Machiavelli describe their views about trusting the human reasoning. John Locke and Karl Marx argues that humans have the capability, to be both reasonable and cognitive and they adapt this nature from their society to be united. However, Niccolo Machiavelli argues that human beings are not being reasonable and are getting disorganized at some point. Marx and Locke believe that people are caring, equal and they have the power to rule themselves. Although Machiavelli describe people as selfish and easily changed. He also wants the people to rule themselves, but he is supporting only upper-class people. Even though all three writers describe different views on human reasoning but they all wanted the government to give freedom of liberty to humans and bring the change around the world.

Differing greatly from the views of Plato, Socrates (as seen through Plato’s teachings), and Aristotle, modern philosophers focused more prominently on human nature instead of the pressing matters of diverse government systems. Granted, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke do discuss political systems to some extent, but they are nowhere near as invested in the ideas of the just and political systems which enticed Plato and Socrates. John Locke was a forward thinker who believed that man is inherently a social animal. Thomas Hobbes takes the counter to this theory with the belief that man is not a social animal at all, and the constructs of society can only work through the power of the state. Both of these men are considered modern thinkers for many reasons, even though their ideas might not always line up.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are social theorists who are both educated in Oxford University. However, they hold distinctive views on human nature, laws, societies, and government. Locke believes in democracy, which the power and the government are in the hands of people, but Hobbes believes in absolute monarchy, where the power and government are belong to the monarch. In this essay, I will mainly use comparison and contrast, first discuss their different opinions about human nature and laws because they are the building blocks to form the government, and then present their views on the formation and purposes of the government. Moreover, I will explain why Locke’s belief, I think, can form a better and more practical government than

Niccolò Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes both have compelling views towards liberty or freedom. In relation to politics, the term liberty and freedom is an essential contested concept. Because we have no complete agreement as to what these terms concrete definitions are, we will always have politics. The two thinkers have provided a framework of what these two terms mean which laid out a platform for what the terms mean today. Machiavelli expressed his views through his works, The Discourses and The Prince, where he wrote down his political beliefs and most importantly, the issue of freedom or liberty. Notably, Machiavelli praises Rome for its perfection and how liberty played a role in helping the greatness of the city in which he believes resulted from people ruling themselves. Hobbes, through his work The Leviathan, defined liberty or freedom as the absence of external impediments (Leviathan, 136). Hobbes had no interest in where these terms historically derived from, rather he sought to define these terms through his own discovery. Furthermore, Machiavelli provided a more complex model on how to protect freedom. I aim to present the views of the two thinkers pertaining to liberty or freedom, and argue how Machiavelli provides a more compelling view in comparison to Hobbes. The terms liberty and freedom will be used interchangeably throughout the paper since there are no concrete distinctions between them.

Niccolo Machiavelli was the first to clearly decipher politics from ethics by studying politics in such depth and thought. He created the basis of what politics should be and how they are runned for today. His book The Prince is primarily a handbook for all rulers to follow to be the most successful in their reign. His book is considered political realism which means he speaks about only the truth of politics, so it can be used for the practice of governing. Machiavelli’s book is the handbook for obtaining and maintaining power even for today’s modern politics.