A successful ruler, contending with indifferent to moral and religious considerations. Machiavelli asserted that kings or princes should only be concerned with preserving and strengthen the states power and must ignore the question of good and evil, morality and immorality. The way he gave political advice can defiantly help and hurt politician in a modern democratic society. He states "Thus it is well to seem merciful, faithful, humane, sincere, religious and also to be so: but you must have the mind so disposed that when it is needful to be otherwise you may be able to change to the opposite qualities." I personally think that Machiavelli prince would be a great at all the things he states in the reading.
This has supported by his writing that he believed that a successful form of government depend on the good relations between the people and its leader. Also he strongly believed that once cannot have total control and that things would be run as its course when the t... ... middle of paper ... ...ill just do what the leader ordered because they fear the consequences of not doing it. Notably, Lao Tzu’s perceptual teaching and Machiavelli’s rationality tactics were both too intense and harsh; either method will not persist long in today’s modern politic government where people believe more in freedom. However, it is because both Lao Tzu’s and Machiavelli’s ideas were too extreme, that the most effective government is to combine both ideas from the two philosophers in order to balance out. Lao believed that the less the leader or government intervenes; the happier the people.
Niccolo Machiavelli was one of the most influential writers of the Renaissance. He started to write “The Prince” in July of 1513 and finished it in 1514. The Prince was written during a time of political turbulence, as a practical guide to help Lorenzo de’ Medici stay in power, and also as a guide for a ruler or future ruler, showing what a ruler needs to do to maintain political power while withstanding attacks by foreign powers. He also stated, “I too would like to commend myself to Your Magnificence with some token of my readiness to serve you” (Machiavelli). Machiavelli lived in Florence, Italy, at this time politically organized by city states.
A ruler cannot show any weakness, or else he will no longer be feared enough to keep him in power, and he will be overthrown. Everybody sees what a ruler seems to be, but few really know who he is. A ruler must seem determined and moral to the people, and show positive results from his leadership. The most important thing for a ruler to do is to avoid being hated or despised by the people, which could occur if a ruler took people's property. For the people, more than the form of power, their perception of power may be the most important for a ruler to maintain his position.
(“A government to protect the people from one another to keep them in awe”) In the “Social Contract” Hobbes said that men should give up rights to an authority to act for them, on their behalf. He said that sovereign authority had to be absolute to overcome fear of death in nature. With this said, it basically meant that the governments only reason for existing was for the safety of the people. He also believed that no person was subject to any power above them, so there was no certain power to protect any one power from another. “You took by force what you wanted, you are only as safe as your own intellect and physical strength.” So, Hobbes believed that the government should provide protection, well-being, and any other need a citizen might have.
In particular, it robs those who disagree with these silenced opinions. Mill then turns to the reasons why humanity is hurt by silencing opinions. His first argument is that the suppressed opinion may be true. He writes that since human beings are not infallible, they have no authority to decide an issue for all people, and to keep others from coming up with their own judgments. Mill asserts that the reason why liberty of opinion is so often in danger is that in practice people tend to be confident in their own rightness, and excluding that, in the infallibility of the world they come in contact with.
This idea brings up an important issue on how governments should be formed. No government should be created with a single ideology that will guide the affairs of the state as it would be exclusionary and discriminatory toward those that do not adhere. Hood sees the problem with ideology in his recognition that ideology is created by an individual and varies across all. He says, “Ideology is also often defined as a worldview that is not readily ‘disprovable’ by facts and events, because after every apparent failure the true believers can argue that the problem arose because their preferred approach was not applied vigorously enough, rather than that it was tried and failed.” As a result, it is my opinion that government cannot have a set ideology but should have a framework to work
Instead of holding power and forcing rules, Lao-Tzu wishes to teach simplicity, patience, and compassions. He views the latter as "the greatest treasures" and if one has the three qualities, one will be a better person. Although similarities between Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu may be difficult to detect, their views are both very extreme. Machiavelli believes that the prince should have total control and do anything to gain power; however, Lao-Tzu desires a political system in which everything runs its own course.
You would agree with this statement because it is logical and is what the citizens believe. No one wants a prince to behave in crafty dealings and not be able to keep his word so Machiavelli gives us other reasons why a prince should do this. It is just not about being there for the people, it’s about being smart. Machiavelli shows us in the course of keeping your word there are other things you can do as well. Princes who achieved more were the ones who kept their word they didn’t put too much on them selves other wise they wouldn... ... middle of paper ...
Before looking at what type of Government is best, it’s important to know about human nature because gives us an idea of the type of people, who would have the power in Government. Human nature deals with the distinguishing characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and act, which humans tend to have naturally, without any influence from the culture around them. Between both of them, Hobbes was the one that had a negative view of human nature. He believed that people were born to be bad and cruel and would act on behalf of their own best interests, like “Every man for himself” and that society could not exist exce... ... middle of paper ... ...at should the people do? With Rebellion against the Government that is abusive to the people.