8. ROLE OF STATE Kautilya laid down elaborate plans for social security for women, children, old and the disabled. He advocated state regulation of disputes, control over supply of alcohol, etc. On the other hand Machiavelli in his book “The Prince” did not provide many insights into the role of state as the book was like a guide to a king and thus had reasons to avoid the other aspects which define the structure of society but focused more on power politics. 9. ROLE OF ADVISERS There are sharp differences regarding the role of advisers. According to Kautilya, due to bounded rationality a king could not solve complex problems alone by himself. So Kautilya advised appointment of advisers and pooling of their information, knowledge and …show more content…
It is overly simplistic to mark these two theorists as cold-hearted realists and demonise them, for both placed many caveats upon the use of extreme force. Chanakya forbade the king from attacking another just king, for the aggressor could not hope to hold the gains he made against just king. Machiavelli agrees with Chanakya, saying, “one cannot call it virtue to kill one’s fellow citizens, betray one’s friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion.” As regards cruelty and mercy, Machiavelli states, “he is to be reprehended who commits violence for the purpose of destroying, and not he who employs it for beneficent purposes. The lawgiver should, however, be sufficiently wise and virtuous not to leave this authority which he has assumed either to his heirs or to any one else; for mankind, being more prone to evil than to good…”. Thus, Mansfield’s statement about Machiavelli can be extended to describe Chanakya as well: for both these men, “there is just one beginning—necessity.” Even in victory, both recommend generous behaviour towards the vanquished, letting them keep their traditions and treating captives well—both sought stability and order internally as well as externally. Both project a sense of paternalism towards the subjects of their realms, yet both are cognisant of the fact that the security of the realm is sometimes paid for by a high body count, hopefully the
In 1513, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote “The Prince,” telling rulers how they should rule. (Document 1) Many of the ideas in his book are shown in the ways these rulers governed their people. King Louis XIV believed if there were multiple people had power more would take advantage of it (Document 3) which is a major idea from “The Prince,” stating “for love is held by a bond of obligation, which, as men are wicked, is broken whenever personal advantage suggests it.” (Document 1).
What’s the Best Way to Rule the People? (An analysis of the differing views of government between Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu) Machiavelli and Lao-tzu both ruled over a group of people at one time or another and they both had extremely different views of government and on how to rule their groups as well. Machiavelli was a man that ruled during the Renaissance in Italy while Lao-tzu ruled in China. The word government is defined as the governing body of a nation, state or community. Machiavelli was an aristocrat that lived from 1469 to 1527.
President Obama echo a leadership of both Niccolo Machiavelli "The Qualities of the Prince" and Martin Luther King Jr. "Letter from Birmingham Jail". Machiavelli point of view to become a successful prince was that you must lead your people. He talks about how a prince should appear to his people for authority. There are different types of principles such as war and is it better to be loved or feared.
In Niccolo Machiavelli's book, The Prince (1513), he evaluates on how a prince can be a successful leader. Machiavelli’s purpose of this guidebook was to construct his argument to the rising ruler Giuliano de Medici for when he comes to power in Florence. He adopts a casual but authoritative tone in order to convince the prince that Machiavelli’s evaluation on how to be the best prince, is the right thing for the prince to do without coming off as he knows more than the prince or is trying to intimidate him.. Machiavelli’s reference to previous rulers and whether their tactics failed or succeeded helps to benefit his credibility along with his allusion to historic text. He appeals to our logic by simply stating a prince can only do what is within his power to control, and his use of an analogy furthers his argument.
Then for Machiavelli he talks about how a prince should show no fear instead for him to show that he is the one with power. That a prince's people should fear him. Both authors go on to talk on how their people react based on the prince and princesse act. The authors then go on to explain how they should view and run their people. Both authors also reflect the fact that the way their people are going to act towards them is mainly based off of how they treat them.
Society's first global age spanned from about 1450-1770 and was characterized by major economic and political growth. People began to travel more frequently and learn foreign notions. This time, however, also brought about a great conflict: the desire of those in power to be in control and the people's desire to be free of control. There came about an exchange of new ideas, different reactions to these radical concepts, and opinions about how power should be distributed.
1. Machiavellian founding is somewhat similar to the United States because the founding fathers were provided with the fortune of a tyrannical government and the ability to reform, and use force to gain their liberty from Britain. However, the Constitution was written and designed with the people in mind, and Machiavelli only provides instructions that seem to have only the Princes interests in mind rather than the whole of society. 2. Cesare Borgia was considered a fortunate prince to Machiavelli because he inherited his throne from his father.
Renaissance means rebirth. The Renaissance was a time of renewal as well as of chaos in Europe since it was still recovering. More and more ideas of the ideal prince emerged, as there are many different city-states. One of the most noteworthy political philosophers of the sixteenth century was Niccólo Machiavelli whose book, The Prince, a political handbook for rulers, has brought him recognition. It can be seen that his ideas on politics and overall inspiration for the book mainly came from his views of the political problems that were taking place.
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries many kings of many different kingdoms ruled in a different way from each other, but as for the information stated in the documents given it seems like Absolutism was most effective for ruling kingdoms and civilizations back in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Many Rulers during that time period used Absolutism as a form of government to govern their own people. As stated in document one by Niccolo Machiavelli “Any prince,trusting only in their works and having no preparation made, will fall to ruin, for friendships that are bought at a price and not by the greatness and nobility of soul are paid for indeed, but they are not owned and cannot be called upon in in time of need… as men are
His mindset was simple. to manifest dismay and use the overwhelming power as a dictator. His intentions are clear, and his words are powerful. With a combination of rhetorical devices, a symphony of teachings are made and preached. Machiavelli is a strong advocate to use fear to herd together the common man, he begins his argument by asking a simple question, “ Here the question… safer than to be loved”.
The Prince and the Discourses, by Machiavelli as a gift to the prince. Because it was the best thing that Niccolo Machiavelli could give to him. He was trying to teach the prince ways to stay in power. Machiavelli even stated it himself “I can consider of this subject, discussing what a principality is, the variety of such states, how they are won, how they are held, and how they are lost” (Machiavelli xxiv). The main focus of his work was with monarchies because he did not care for republics.
Machiavelli has the most correct ideas on both controlling the people as a ruler and on being remembered as a great one. These two viewpoints had great influence during their time and for centuries to come, both with modern ideas and correct ideas even though they had a lot of contrast. Machiavelli’s The Prince may be thought of the more recognizable of the two in the present, but people in the present day have many of the same ideas that
The Prince, written by Machiavelli, is a candid outline of how he believes leaders gain and keep power. Machiavelli uses examples of past leaders to determine traits that are necessary to rule successfully. Leaders such as the King of Naples and the Duke of Milan lacked military power, made their subjects hate them, or did not know how to protect themselves from the elite, causing them to lose power. He says that these rulers should blame laziness, not luck, for their failures. By looking at these historical successes and failures, Machiavelli is able to develop his own thoughts on how politics and leaders should be in the future.
When Machiavelli says he wants a prince to be fierce he isn 't talking about killing people, he is more so talking about having the courage to make a risky law change or do something people may not like, but will help them in the long run. He was not smart in any way like a fox is. Throwing people into
I. Machiavelli In his famous work the Prince Niccolo Machiavelli exposes what it takes to be a good prince and how only this good price and keep control over his state. There are many different qualities that make a man a good ruler but there are some that are more essential than others. In this work Machiavelli stresses the importance of being a warrior prince, a wise prince, and knowing how to navigate the duality of virtù and vices. Without these attributes there was no way that a prince could hold together their state and their people.