Machiavelli Vs Mill

1071 Words5 Pages
Niccolò Machiavelli and John Stuart Mill both speak on the terms of what makes up a great political decision-maker. Both individual being more than three-hundred years apart, yet their ideas on the type of government, and the individuals within, to make a country successful still are applicable today. Machiavelli speaks on behalf of the characteristics which a competent leader should possess, while Mill focuses on the importance of education in the world of politics and decision-making.

Very little is known about the early life of Machiavelli, being born in Florence, he entered the public eye with the appointment of the second Chancellor of the Republic of Florence. In 1512, however, with the assistance of Spanish troops, the Medici, who
…show more content…
He positions the book by speaking about a hypothetical “prince”, who Machiavelli outwardly describes characteristics which he considers would make a prince. Knowledge is a large part in the making of this leader, the knowledge of military strategy. “It is evident that if rulers concern themselves more with the refinements of life than with military matters, they lose power”. The primary discipline of a rule is the art of war, the Prince must spend all of his time on this matter in order to be best prepared he must study rigorously during peacetime to be prepared for…show more content…
The balance is essential between both because if he practices generosity it becomes so self-consuming that the more you practice it, the less you will be able to continue the practice, this is due to the use of all resource and prevents the continued generosity; this would inevitably lead to the state despising the prince. “Therefore, it is shrewder to cultivate a reputation for meanness, which will lead to notoriety but not hatred. This is better than being forced, through wanted to be considered generous, to incur a reputation for rapacity, which will lead to notoriety and to hatred as well”. Cruelty and mercifulness, A question arises whether it is better to be loved or feared, or vice versa? “My view is that it is desirable to be both loved and feared; but it is difficult to achieve both and, if one of them has to be lacking, it is much safer to be feared than loved”. A ruler who has relied most of his energy towards forming friendships and confiding in other men 's promises, and neglected to prepare other defences, will be ruined. A friendship that is acquired through monetary values, and not through greatness, are within themselves unreliable when they are needed. When it comes to the military approach, it is best not to consider the harshness because armies are not kept united and prepared for action unless their leader is harsh. In these
Open Document