Plato Vs Machiavelli

Plato and Machiavelli were nevertheless, as similar as they were different on their beliefs in an idealistic government. Both of their ideas have been taught for years, and are certainly essential to understand how they interpret a perfect polis.
Plato emphasis the question on what is justice for the people as well as for the Kallipolis and whether a just person is better off than an unjust person. Ethical beliefs are Plato’s main focus in a government. Plato claims that in order to maintain a harmonious polis, the people must accept their position as they were born to be by Mother Nature. Only those born with a gold heart will be rulers and they will look over those born craftsmen, farmers who have copper hearts and auxiliaries who have

He believes anyone can rule a polis if they have virtu. Once a ruler, a simple rule to follow to maintain power and not to be hated by the people, is to “not take away a man’s possession or woman”, Machiavelli believes the people will not feel threaten by following this rule, thus maintaining a stable polis. He expresses how “human nature never changes”, and that people are self-interested and they can turn against you once you are not profiting them. A good ruler must have the strength to do whatever it takes to obtain and maintain power, which essentially means that even if they have to hurt some of the people for the benefit of the popular mass, then they shall do so for the greater cause.
Both Plato and Machiavelli believe that there must be a government in order for human kind to survive. Without order or stability, people would kill each other. Another key factor in which Plato and Machiavelli seem to agree on is that by keeping the mass happy the government is safe. Essentially, if people have nothing to truly complain about, then the ruler will not be overthrown by the popular mass. Lastly, although these great philosophers wanted stability and freedom, they both acknowledge the reality that it is impossible to have both in