Machiavelli's Prince Vs Hobbes Taxation Case Study

872 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: The form, role and power of government according to Hobbes

7. MACHIAVELLI’S PRINCE V. HOBBES’ SOVEREIGN CAGE MATCH Though they are both absolute rulers over their respective states, the choice between living in a state ruled by Machiavelli’s Prince and Hobbes’ Sovereign is not an incredibly difficult one. Under Hobbes’ Sovereign, the subjects are far more protected, and the Sovereign works in their favour. The primary goal of Machiavelli’s Prince is to take and then maintain his power; the goal of the Sovereign is to maintain peace and stability, and the “procuration of the safety of the people”. This “safety” that Hobbes refers to is not simply a “bare preservation” of the human life, but “all other Contentments of life”; food, shelter, and employment, for example. It is for this end that the Sovereign …show more content…

In this state, Hobbes explains, the breaking of the law is permitted if “a man is destitute…and cannot preserve himself any other way, but by some fact against the Law…he is totally Excused.” This Hobbesian society is one which provides for all its subjects and permits them to do what they must to preserve their safety. The focus on the wellbeing of the subjects is clear – it is the goal of the Sovereign and all should be done to ensure that it is fulfilled. Taken in comparison to Machiavelli’s Prince, Hobbes’ state is far more forgiving to be subject to; nowhere in The Prince does Machiavelli outline a similar statement of laws. Machiavelli only declares that conquered principalities may be easier to maintain control over if old laws are kept, and that a state “used to freedom can be more easily ruled through its own citizens.” Even if this is so, and the Prince allows the citizens to aid in the government of the state, and retains old laws, this type of rule is not guaranteed, and is only implemented to the end of maintaining power. There’s also no security that these laws were equitable to begin with, as Hobbes’ Sovereign’s laws are intended to be. The Sovereign that Hobbes describes is bound to be fair and just while Machiavelli’s Prince can, essentially, do as he pleases if he doesn’t believe he’ll …show more content…

It is worth noting, however, that this is an apparently unattainable reality. This essay has been written with an ideal in mind, with Hobbes’ state fully realised. Given the chance today, in the existing world, between the Prince and the Sovereign, with no promise of that ideal being fulfilled, I would choose Machiavelli’s Prince; the Prince is far more pragmatic, a safer ruler. A benevolent absolute ruler is an unattainable ideal – a pragmatic, cunning ruler with an astute political mind is not. But of course, if it was possible, I would choose the more representative, consented to, and benevolent Hobbesian

Show More
Related

  • The Qualities Of A Prince Rhetorical Analysis

    740 Words  | 2 Pages

    Niccolò Machiavelli was a man who lived during the fourteen and fifteen hundreds in Florence, Italy, and spent part of his life imprisoned after the Medici princes returned to power. He believed that he should express his feelings on how a prince should be through writing and became the author of “The Qualities of a Prince.” In his essay, he discusses many points on how a prince should act based on military matters, reputation, giving back to the people, punishment, and keeping promises. When writing his essay, he follows his points with examples to back up his beliefs. In summary, Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of a Prince,” provides us with what actions and behaviors that a prince should have in order to maintain power and respect.

    Read More

  • Leviathan: Thomas Hobbes

    1340 Words  | 3 Pages

    He takes off with a hypothetical scenario that he refers to as “the state of nature”, wherein he analyzes the condition of individuals before the emergence of states. In such a state society is deemed to be chaotic and all men are considered equal and all have a right to act so as to survive , In such a state of nature he refers to human life as being “nasty, solitary, brutish and short”. He states three laws of nature that man must adhere to in such a state of nature and states that without observance of the laws of nature there will be continuous struggle arising from the conflict of individual judgments as to how best to survive. It is only by ceding will to a Leviathan is order created, based on mutual relation between protection and obedience. Hobbes refers to such a covenant as the “social contract”, whereby the individuals taking part promise to transfer their rights to govern themselves to some sovereign. The Contract is not made between the individuals and that sovereign. Indeed, the “sovereign has an absolute power to govern; there is no point at which he may be considered as subject to those who made the Contract among themselves” . Further, it is important to note that Hobbes has in mind, when referring to the sovereign, a ‘person’ or ‘an assembly of persons’ . For Hobbes law is the command of the sovereign and without a sovereign, law and social contract will cease to exist and he believe...

    Read More

  • Hobbes’ Leviathan: A Principality? A Republic? Or Something New?

    931 Words  | 2 Pages

    Machiavelli divides all states into principalities and republics, principalities are governed by a solitary figure and republics are ruled by a group of people. With Hobbes’ Leviathan, a new model for governing a territory was introduced that can no longer be equally divided into Machiavelli's two state categories. Hobbes combines the concepts of governing principalities and republics into a new type of political thought that is similar to and different from Machiavelli. Hobbes, unlike Machiavelli, is on the side of the people and not the armed prophets. Hobbes believes that the function of society is not just merely living, but to have a safe and comfortable life.

    Read More

  • Carl Schmitt's Ideas Of John Locke And Thomas Hobbes

    986 Words  | 2 Pages

    As the centuries went on, philosophy, just like many other things, became much more secular. That being said, Schmitt made it very clear in “The Problem of Sovereignty” that “In political reality”, sovereigns no longer act under the idea of natural law (Schmitt 17). Later on in this same chapter, Schmitt discusses how Hobbes would not understand the idea of superior and inferior because Hobbes believes anyone who has power is subject to the other. However, when Hobbes was writing much earlier, the idea of natural law was still a very prominent concept in philosophy and therefore Hobbes believed that even the absolute sovereign was subject to the laws of nature which he clearly states in “Of Civil Laws” when he says the laws the sovereign makes “be not against the law of nature (which is undoubtedly God’s law)” (Hobbes

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Thomas Hobbes Leviathan

    767 Words  | 2 Pages

    Hobbes first presents us with the practical problem of partial authority, that is to say, non-absolute. He exemplifies this in monarchies where the ruler does not necessarily have absolute power. He cites that when kings or queens are not in full control of their states from the outset, situations that arise where power is uptaking may appear as an ‘unjust act’ to the common man. Therefore, Hobbes concludes, the often critical uptake of power in times of crisis, war, or rebellion can be circumnavigated by unifying state power from initial construction, rather than dividing it.

    Read More

  • George Bush as a Machiavellian Leader

    1442 Words  | 3 Pages

    The most astounding aspect of The Prince is Machiavelli’s view that princes may indeed, be cruel and dishonest if their ultimate aim is for the good of the state. It is not only acceptable but necessary to lie, to use torture, and to walk over other states and cities. Machiavellianism is defined as “A political doctrine of Machiavelli, which denies the relevance of morality in political affairs and holds that craft and deceit are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power (Def.)” This implies that in the conquest for power, the ends justify the means. This is the basis of Machiavellianism. The priority for the power holder is to keep the security of the state regardless of the morality of the means. He accepts that these things are in and of themselves morally wrong, but he points out that the consequences of failure, the ruin of states and the destruction of cities, can be far worse. Machiavelli strongly emphasizes that princes should not hesitate to use immoral methods to achieve power, if power is necessary for security and survival.

    Read More

  • Hobbes and Locke

    869 Words  | 2 Pages

    Hobbes, on the other hand attested to a role of government akin to monarchy or dictatorship. His definition of the role of the state is a direct inversion of Locke’s. He states society is a creation of the state and therefore the governed surrender their rights so the state can fulfill its main func...

    Read More

  • Machiavelli and Rousseau's Views on Human Nature and Government

    558 Words  | 2 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Machiavelli vs. Lao-Tzu

    284 Words  | 1 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Machiavelli The Prince Rhetorical Analysis

    1032 Words  | 3 Pages

    Machiavelli discusses assertive and bold ideas in “The Prince,” revealing his radical and courageous nature. His treatise is deceptively self-soliciting, because he disguises his extreme notions behind a veil of feigned expertise. His frank approach makes him appear confident and deserving of the utmost respect; however, he cautiously humbles himself by pouring immense flattery for the ruling prince into his work and, in doing so, assures protection for himself and his notorious ideas.

    Read More

  • The State of Nature: Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury

    1681 Words  | 4 Pages

    In this essay, I will present three reasons as to why the absolute authority of the sovereign in Hobbes’s state of nature and social contract is justified. The three reasons Hobbes uses are: the argument from contract, the argument from authorisation and the argument from weakness of mixed or divided sovereignty. Firstly, I shall explain Hobbes’s understanding of human nature and the natural condition of humanity which causes the emergence of the social contract. I shall then analyse each argument for the absolute authority of the sovereign being justified. I shall then consider possible objections to Hobbes’s argument. I shall then show why Hobbes’s argument is successful and the absolute authority of the sovereign is justified.

    Read More

  • The Purpose Of Government In Machiavelli's The Prince

    1192 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • The Tao-te Ching by Lao-Tzu and The Prince by Machiavelli

    1754 Words  | 4 Pages

    As he begins to conclude, Machiavelli states that the prince: “should think about avoiding those things which make him hated and despised.” (Mach 48) Although these lack any withstanding moral values, they are effective in the sense that they better serve their purpose. Machiavelli was seeking to display a way to hold political power by any means possible not a utopian state. This may mean malicious acts, imprisonment, and torture, or it may mean the utilization of power to achieve a common good. Machiavelli doesn’t elaborate on this. He concentrates on a realistic approach towards government, as he remains concerned with the establishment and protection of power.

    Read More

  • Comparing Machiavelli and Hobbes

    1482 Words  | 3 Pages

    While both Machiavelli and Hobbes agree that there should be rule by a sovereign, and that this individual will probably make better decisions than individuals, the two disagree on basic assumptions. While Machiavelli believes that the ends justify the means, Hobbes tends to align religion and politics and sees the way in which policies play out as vital for the moral good of society. Machiavelli embraces the idea of a virtuous republican citizen similar to how one might consider a citizen today. To give power and authority to the individual in charge, and trust in what he is doing, is to be virtuous. Hobbes' idea of a subject who properly understands the nature and basis of sovereign political power is more important than the simple, unquestioning support of the leader.

    Read More

  • Comparing Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli

    2258 Words  | 5 Pages

    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.

    Read More

More about Machiavelli's Prince Vs Hobbes Taxation Case Study

Open Document