I view Machiavelli as being right. He made a lot of sense to me regarding his ideas with the populace and their support. If the people love you, you won’t have to worry about being attacked and conspiracies. However, if you are hated by the people, then you “should fear everything and everyone”. You cannot be a ruler without people, and to be successful you need their backing. I understand what Machiavelli writes about when he mentions that a ruler should treat the powerful with respect, since they have to power to usurp the ruler and to cause them trouble, while also “avoid[ing] being hated by the people” for the same reasons (58). Machiavelli’s reasoning towards getting new territories and their support, especially ones that had different traditions was correct, since that’s one way that Alexander the Great was able to get so much territory. Acquiring territories that have a different culture than yours is a difficult task, you will need “resourcefulness if you are going to hold on to them”. The best and least expensive way to hold onto territories according to Machiavelli is not to bring in armies, but “for the ruler to go and live in his new territories” (9), since that will allow the ruler to closely watch for any problems that might arise, and let the ruler’s power solidify and become long lasting.
Machiavelli’s ideas on how to govern a country's people is correct.
- Eli
Dear Eli,
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting how Machiavelli, more than a century before Locke, seemed to theorize on the notion of the consent of the governed as a sine qua non of statecraft.
Do you think Machiavelli’s advice about political expansionism, despite its merit, could beget a phenomenon of imperial overstretch if taken to an extreme? One blogger amusingly described imperial overstretch in class with a pizza dough analogy.
What I really enjoyed about your blog post was your use of quotes from Machiavelli's point to make your claims irrefutable. Because each argument you made for your case was supported through textual evidence there was no point where I as the reader questioned its validity. While I do agree with your overarching point that he was right, I don't think that his point about being loved is better than being feared was his strongest case. A common theme for those who believed he was right thought that he still conveyed his ideas poorly; so I would like to ask if you agree with that or if he presented his arguments in a "correct" way?
ReplyDeleteEli you bring a good point in his writing. A ruler needs people in order to even identify as a leader, unless of course you are Petyr Baelish in which case your desire is to rule over the ashes, anyways without the support of the people the ruler has no real chance at a long lasting legacy. Another point which brought up a lot of interest was Machiavelli's stance on perception. What are your thoughts on his view of perception? Doe that lead to more or less problems for the ruler?
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that Machiavelli makes some good points, I think it's also important to look at it in the context of today, where we, for example, don't really conquer territories anymore. His whole concept of the ruler going and living in their new territories is essentially establishing colonies which has been a large global issue in the past but not really anymore. Something to think about is definitely how to apply Machiavelli's claims to modern day.
ReplyDelete