Government power is defined as an authority held by a group in a society and their skill and ability of controlling a population through policies, resources, and administration. In the time span of 1715 to 1914 government power mutated by changing its essential nature which is especially clear in England and Italy. Between Thomas Paine, Karl Marx, and Machiavelli, I argue that Machiavelli had the most insight on government power and its tendencies in Europe over time. In England, government power mutated drastically between the time period of 1715, when George I was in power, to 1914 when George V presided over the throne, becoming more ceremonial as time passed. George I held little interest in England’s affairs, spending most of his time …show more content…
Thomas Paine believes “government even in it’s best state is but a necessary evil” (Paine, Common Sense, 3) He is unapologetically outspoken against monarchy, believing it to be a violation of natural law. He supports equality of rights in all men, a republican government, and the American Revolution. Contrary to Paine, Machiavelli believes an absolute monarch is best suited to rule over a society. He extensively lays out the groundwork for how to be a successful ruler in his book The Prince. His advice covers everything from political and military affairs to domestic affairs. He believes that the role of the state is to have complete control of its people by any means possible. For a ruler, Machiavelli states “it is far better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both” (Machiavelli, The Prince, 54). Machiavelli does not endorse representative democracy as Paine does, nor does he support socialism as Karl Marx does. Socialism is the basis of what Karl Marx and his political philosophy revolved around. He firmly believed “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Marx, The Communist Manifesto, 65). His view of controlled governmental power was cemented in his idea that a utopian communist society could successfully exist. Marx supported the bourgeoisie, believing that a society is better off with a group of common men in charge and not an absolute ruler. His ideas were influential to some but were weak compared to Paine and Machiavelli in the time period and place of European government between 1715 and
Niccolo Machiavelli, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill present three distinct models of government in their works The Prince, Second Treatise of Government, and Utilitarianism. From an examination of these models it is possible to infer their views about human nature and its connection to the purpose of government. A key to comparing these views can be found in an examination of their ideas of morality as an intermediary between government and human nature. Whether this morality must be inferred from their writings or whether it is explicitly mentioned, it differs among the three in its definition, source, and purpose.
A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.
Machiavelli’s views were drastically different from other humanists at his time. He strongly promoted a secular society and felt morality was not necessary but stood in the way of a successfully governed state. He stated that people generally tended to work for their own best interests and gave little thought to the well being of the state. He distrusted citizens saying, “In time of adversity, when a state is in need of its citizens, there are few to be found.” In his writings in The Prince, he constantly questioned the citizens’ loyalty and warned for the leaders to be wary in trusting citizens. His radical and distrusting thoughts on human nature were derived out of concern for Italy’s then unstable government. Machiavelli also had a s...
Machiavelli believes that a government should be very structured, controlled, and powerful. He makes it known that the only priorities of a prince are war, the institutions, and discipline. His writings describes how it is more important for a prince to be practical than moral. This is shown where he writes, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" (47). In addition, Machiavelli argues that a prince may have to be cunning and deceitful in order to maintain political power. He takes the stance that it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. His view of how a government should run and his unethical conduct are both early signs of dictatorship.
A1. England was run by a Parliament and per history had very limited involvement of the monarchy or direct rule by the king. As well as the colonial legislatures; members were elected by property-holding men and governors were given authority to make decisions on behalf of the king. This system our leadership and how it controls its people the reason many
Machiavelli is undisputedly one of the most influential political philosophers of all time. In The Prince, his most well-known work, he relates clearly and precisely how a decisive, intelligent man can gain and maintain power in a region. This work is revolutionary because it flies in the face of the Christian morality which let the Roman Catholic Church hold onto Europe for centuries. Machiavelli's work not only ignores the medieval world's ethics: The Prince suggests actions which oppose the four most basic of Christianity's Ten Commandments.
Machiavelli’s The Prince was written more than 500 years ago and it is “one of the most influential and controversial books published in Western literature.” (Article A) It was about Machiavelli’s political philosophies and the basic principles of what he believes a politician or “prince” should be. The three main ideas of the Prince were “Liberality and Stinginess”, “Cruelty and Mercy: Is It Better to Be Loved Than Feared, or the Reverse?”, and “How a Prince Should Keep Their Promises” and for the most part many of his concepts should or are already instilled in our government.
Machiavelli in his famous book “The Prince” describes the necessary characteristics for a strong and successful leader. He believes that one of the most important characteristics is to rule in favor of his government and to hold power in his hands. Power is an essential aspect of Machiavelli’s theory, and a leader should do whatever it takes to keep it for the safety of his country because “the ends justifies the means.” To attain and preserve the power, a leader should rather be feared than loved by his people, but it is vital not to be hated. As he states, “anyone compelled to choose will find far greater security in being feared than in being loved.” If a leader is feared, the people are less likely to revolt, and in the end, only a threat of punishment can guarantee obedienc...
In a work written by Machiavelli called The Prince, there are many ideas he believes should be part of a government. The United States today is a Federal Republic. This means that it is a “federation of states that have a republican form of government”. Being a republican government means that the power of the country lies with the people and their elected representatives. This essay will be tackling the topic of whether or not the ideas that Machiavelli stated should or should not be implemented into our own system of government today.
Is the purpose of government today, similar to that of philosophers of the past, or has there been a shift in political thought? This essay will argue that according to Machiavelli’s The Prince, the purpose of government is to ensure the stability of the state as well as the preservation of the established ruler’s control, and that the best form of government should take the form of an oligarchy. In contrast, in his book, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes argues that the purpose of government should be to preserve the peace and security of men and, that the best form of government would be an absolute monarchy which would sanction such conditions. This essay will utilize themes of glory, material advantage, peace and stability to illustrate
An effective leader is one that understands that a society must evolve and revolutionize, in order to meet the needs of the state that are of immediate concern. As a society we are able to build off prior knowledge of once existing methods of living, and adjust them to meet current demands. Both Thomas Hobbes, and Nicolo Machiavelli’s concept, and perception of an ideal sovereign remains present in current forms of government. Machiavelli’s ideas in The Prince indicate that it is simple for any civilian to gain, and maintain power
When examining the totalitarian government of 1984 by George Orwell, a direct connection can be drawn to the motives and ideals associated with Niccoló Machiavelli’s The Prince. Machiavelli’s support of the political necessity as a means to remain in power resonate with the government whose aim is to “extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought” as a way to ensure complete political orthodoxy within the country (193). Specifically, Machiavellian thought plays an important part in 1984 as its ideas on reputation, revolution, avoiding hatred, and the use of fear to control a populace are used by INGSOC in order to maintain complete control throughout the story. In the following paragraphs, the connections between these two works above will be elaborated on in an attempt to show the Machiavellian influence of the government in 1984.
To be successful, one must have the appearance of virtuousness, but not necessarily be virtuous. At least, this appears to be true according to Niccolo Machiavelli's works. Machiavelli's idea of the virtuous republican citizen may be compared to Hobbes' idea of a person who properly understands the nature and basis of sovereign political power. Hobbes' ideas seem to suggest that most anyone can claim rightful authority as there is a belief in God, and one can under Hobbes, claim legitimate authority rather easily. There are few proofs. Machiavelli, on the other hand, takes a strong position and suggests specific criteria in terms of power. With Machiavelli, there is a sense of righteousness and fairness and while he does not sanction authoritarian rule to save man from himself, it is also true that Machiavelli puts a lot of faith in leaders also. In some respects, one can see that the two theorists agree yet Machiavelli’s proposed Political society is more feasible thus superior to that of Hobbes.
Two of the greatest philosophers of all time are Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli. Hobbes was born in 1588 in England, when absolutism was taking hold in Europe. His most famous work was 'Leviathan', written in 1651. Hobbes discussed the ideal state and innate laws of man and nature, among other things. Machiavelli was born in Italy in 1469, a time when his home country was ruled mostly by foreign powers. His hometown, Florence, was still independent. Machiavelli's most famous work, 'The Prince', tells of his ideal state and ideal ruler. Machiavelli goes on to describe the perfect prince, a picture of cruelty and cunning. Though both genius philosophers, their views differ greatly. Hobbes believed in a minimalist government where the state only interfered with the lives of the citizens when it had to. The ideal kingdom was the kingdom of God, in Hobbes' mind. In Machiavelli's 'The Prince', he describes his ideal government with a strong monarch, and fearful subjects. In Hobbes' system, a close relationship was kept with God, while in Machiavelli's reason was the only rule. The most important and most dealt-with area of dialogue is the 'ideal' government.
In late 1513 and early 1514, during a time of extreme political uproar in Florence, Italy, Nicolò Machiavelli wrote the very famous political tract, or handbook as many call it, known as The Prince, to Lorenzo de’ Medici as a guide to help him stay in power. Although Lorenzo protested many of Machiavelli’s recommendations, the now published “book” represents themes such as war craft, virtue, free will, human nature, and goodwill, and to this day remains an epic classic without a disbelieve.