Power, Authority, and Accountability in Politics

However, Machiavelli's implies that a leader who strives to be loved would avoid punishing his people; hence this leader is vulnerable to a transgression by his people since there are no repercussions for opposing his rule. The example of Scipio he used portrays this perfectly as his army rebelled due to his kindness. The absence of repercussions for opposing a prince hence can lead to their authority being undermined, which suggests that it is better for a prince to be loved rather than feared. However, this ignores that people can be blinded by their love for a leader, robbing them of their ability to transgress in the way that he describes; the supporter of President Trump demonstrates this perfectly.

He discusses that the prince have military knowledge, love and fear, trustworthiness, and good and bad reputations. He deeply believes in the art of war. "...a prince must not have any objective nor any thought, nor take up any art, other than the art of war and its ordering and discipline; because it is the only art that pertains to him who commands. And it is of such virtue that not only does it maintain those who were born princes, but many times makes men rise to that rank from private station; and conversely one sees that when princes have thought more of delicacies than of arms, they have lost their state." He also writes about whether it is better to be loved or feared, stating that it is best to be feared, but not hated. Love can change in an instant, and it is better to always have control, even if the prince must be feared. Patriotism and dedication to the state was also a very important aspect. In conclusion, Machiavelli strived for power and strength by any means possible. Through violence and fear, the end result would be worth it to him.

To understand political power aright, and derive it from its original, we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man (...)

The Prince is liable to retain his power and political status quo through means which could included killing off those who’d oppose him, killing off those whose deaths would be convenient to him, using deceit to reach his desired position, and promoting deception over truth to maintain sovereignty over others. Machiavelli even goes as far as to assert that the priority of the Prince should be instilling fear of him into his constituents rather than love of him and appreciation of his rule. Socratic and Machiavellian values

his work, The Prince, Machiavelli references dozens of infamous men and women who are leaders and rulers in their own right. However, he recognizes them for many failures rather than for their successes and conquests. Machiavelli attributes the failure and blame entirely to the fact that none of the mentioned individuals properly adhered to his “rules”. Machiavelli meticulously describes and outlines his ideas of what essential “Prince” qualities are, hoping that someone who reads them will follow his words and turn them into actions. A careful audience who reads the meaning and not just the content will see that The Prince is simply Machiavelli carrying out his plan by covertly doing everything he describes in his outline.

The Prince is a didactic examination of political power, how to achieve it, maintain it, and expand it. Machiavelli does not take into consideration what is morally right, or amoral, only what is useful and useless. The book is more like a technical manual, and technical manuals only state the facts. The book defines what turns a mere man into a great

“Machiavelli wrote The Prince following the fall of the Florentine republic and the re-installation of the Medicis in power.” (Prof. Harkey) Given this detail, it is important to note that it made a significant impact on the society as well as the author. Machiavelli’s pushes for a government that obtains and maintains power through any means necessary. He considers himself worthy of disposing the necessary methodology under the premise that he served in modern political affairs for years and that as an individual who was ruled over, he knows what a ruler calls for. While Machiavelli’s idea of religion is not something the Catholic Church would endorse, he realizes the power it has in shaping ideals. He asks the question about whether it would be best to be feared or loved as a ruler. Personally, he expresses that it would be safer for the ruler to be feared than to be loved but if possible, he should aim to have both. His support for this idea is not unlike the agenda his ruler would have. Machiavelli believes that the nature of man is dishonest and full of greed. “They are ungrateful, fickle, simulators and deceivers, avoiders of danger, and greedy for gain.” (pg. 58) In times of conflict, the typical man would turn against his leader regardless of past loyalty. “The prince who relies entirely upon their words comes to ruin, finding himself stripped naked of other preparations. For friendships acquired by a price and not by greatness and

I believe Machiavelli’s teachings have unrealistic outcomes, and are often unreasonable when discussing the specific qualities of how a prince “should “act. When reading Machiavelli’s work, I often kept thinking that there is no perfect leader, and it often takes adaptability and variety to become a beneficial leader to any good city-state in this time period due to the varying societies. Machiavelli’s The Prince is basically giving us his opinion and a format to how he believes a prince should act. By Machiavelli’s standards, a prince should be very self aware and often hypocritical, condescending, and two-faced towards others. Machiavelli addresses the reader and states that “Every ruler should want to be thought of as compassionate and not cruel…So a ruler ought not to mind the disgrace of being called cruel, if he keeps his subjects peaceful and law abiding” (51). It has been proven to be

To maintain the kingdom respecting and honoring a king or prince he must be polite but not too generous to his people. Machiavelli reminds the reader, yet again, that it is important to be liked and not to be weak and handle decisions and complications wisely. However, a leader should change thing from time to time to keep things new and people enlightened. To be a good ruler, they must gain respect of the people by keeping them pleased. When changing things however, make sure they’re good things such as lowering thing rather than taking things from your people such as firearms. The people will begin to wonder why their things were taken and hate the one who implied such catastrophe. Also Machiavelli believes in Fortresses because of the fear in the people, however, it doesn’t last. Therefore, a prince should stick to trying to please their people rather than Fortress. By a king winning wars, changing things, allowing freedom, and thinking of their people a king shouldn’t be

Throughout The Prince, Machiavelli advises that a prince should secure power though a combination of fear, deception, cruelty, cunning, and immoral actions, including the execution of political opponents. These negative traits branch out of Machiavelli’s mantra, that “it is far safer to be feared than loved if you cannot be both (Prince, p. 151).” To combat the immoral perception of

The great philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli, having such beliefs, puts to rest man’s downfall and presents that way to preservation in his book The Prince, which produces an effective guide for political action based off of his own philosophical beliefs and history’s past. The Prince rest on the principle that, above all, the foundation for a ruler’s success is within verita effettuale—or, the effectiveness of a prince’s rule. Machiavelli urges rulers to focus on acting in ways that will result in the best political dominance rather than to be concerned with what others think of his actions. Furthermore, he mandates that for a prince to uphold his objective as the maintainer of the state, he must not be bound to a set code of morality. With that, Machiavelli takes out what was previously said on human morals and teaches that rulers do not, in fact, need to possess personal moral character in order to be effective political leaders. Indeed, a prince must learn to pay attention to moral qualities in such a manner as to be able to use them to gain the necessary power to control the state. He claims, a prince “should not deviate from what is good, if that is possible, but he should know how to do evil, if that is necessary” (Machiavelli). With this in mind, Machiavelli addresses how a prince should best use love, hate, fear, and cruelty to garner the most effective political rule possible.

Machiavelli's The Prince is written on the premise that an individual is led by their own free will, as oppose to those who sought after religious or supernatural help. He tried to illustrate that individuals were responsible for their own actions, it was a belief that broke away from the catholic church whom believed that God, in all his magnificence was author and finisher of one's fait. According to Machiavelli, a ruling prince's purpose was to be the sole influence over a state, issuing policies that would ultimately serve to his own benefit. These policies revolved around the maintenance and the expansion of his empire. He insisted that princes could only benefit from their subjects by holding a firm grip on them through deceit and manipulation

Machiavelli’s, book the prince has been the centre of debate since its inception. There has been a prevalent stand-point among the philosophers of political science that there ought to be an interplay between morality and legitimate control/ authority. Many philosophers during the course of middle ages leaned towards believing that the authority held by the rural/ leaders was only legitimate, if he was righteous. Thus for the rulers who wanted a long reigns and aimed their heir to acquire the office had no option but to make sure that they behaved well in accordance to normative understanding

Niccolo Machiavelli in his novel “The Prince” (1532) claims that in order for a prince to attain a successful reputation, he must be prepared to abandon virtuous qualities to ensure security and control (1582). He supports the claim by explaining the controversial importance of liberty (“without it his soldiers would not follow,” become “ an object of contempt and hatred” (1584)); by illustrating the idea of being feared over being loved (bond of love “is broken . . . for . . . selfish profit,” “fear is secured by a dread of punishment” (1585)); and by describing how to approach fortune with rashness than with caution (fall to ruin through conservative ways, adapt to the situation to be harmonious with fortune (1590)). Machiavelli’s purpose

There is a form of government in every modern society. Grant it, there are many different political powers but regardless, there is someone, or some group of persons that has formal authority which makes laws, enforces them and punishes those that do not abide. But where does it come from is the question. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Aristotle have theories and ideas that give us a clue. They present ideas concerning different forms of authority; how authority has evolved; and where it even started. And from this I determine that in order to find where political authority comes from you have to ask why we even have a need for authority. And after answering that question it becomes glaringly obvious that political authority comes from people/society’s need to have a higher power in order to best function as civilized human beings.