Think world wars would be prevented if had anarchy?

[russ_watters]

I read it in high school and don't remember the "why" or what causes them to have such aspirations. I don't think he was seeking to explore that anyway. But that sounds like something he would say. I don't think he considered princely aspirations at all negative.

I wasn't suggesting the OP read it because it is an acceptable political theory/method (though it is certainly a viable/functional one!), but rather just an insight into how their minds work. Not a lot of murderous dictators sit back and consider 'why am I a murderous dictator?', they just are. Often times, the "why" is just gibberish or rationalizing anyway and not really all that useful.

 

[mheslep]

I swear, I read The Prince, then reread The Prince specifically looking for what motivation Machiavelli should offer the aspiring prince for doing what Machiavelli proscribed.

I found--and to paraphrase, "to be respected by respectable men." Subsequently, I haven't relocated such a proscription, and distrust my memory.

I seriously doubt Machiavelli could be summarized soundly in that way. Machiavelli thought about how to gather and wield power. Respect would only be usable by means of fear. It would have no moral or nobel component - all useless except as PR per Machiavelli.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I think that Machiavelli is often misconstrued, especially as most people know his writing only secondhand. In addition to the debate about the purpose of his writing (there's a common belief among scholars, probably minority but possibly majority, that he *didn't* support autocratic rule at all; this is well-supported by circumstances but little primary evidence remains), he's usually viewed much too narrowly.

Therefore such as these have great difficulties in consummating their enterprise, for all their dangers are in the ascent, yet with ability they will overcome them; but when these are overcome, and those who envied them their success are exterminated, they will begin to be respected, and they will continue afterward powerful, secure, honored, and happy.

[...]

Coming now to the other qualities mentioned above, I say that every prince ought to desire to be considered clement and not cruel.

[...]

From these causes it arose that Marcus, Pertinax, and Alexander, being all men of modest life, lovers of justice, enemies to cruelty, humane, and benignant, came to a sad end except Marcus; he alone lived and died honored, because he had succeeded to the throne by hereditary title, and owed nothing either to the soldiers or the people; and afterward, being possessed of many virtues which made him respected, he always kept both orders in their places whilst he lived, and was neither hated nor despised.

[...]

Leaving Pagolo Guinigi in command at Lucca, Castruccio set out for Rome with six hundred horsemen, where he was received by Enrico with the greatest distinction. In a short time the presence of Castruccio obtained such respect for the emperor that, without bloodshed or violence, good order was restored, chiefly by reason of Castruccio having sent by sea from the country round Pisa large quantities of corn, and thus removed the source of the trouble. When he had chastised some of the Roman leaders, and admonished others, voluntary obedience was rendered to Enrico.

Having said that, I concur that Phrak's remembered phrase sounds out-of-character for the man.

 

[Astronuc]

I think Machiavelli was primarily interested in ingratiating himself to the mortal powers that were in order to elevate himself and his standard of living.

 

[mheslep]

... The social contract theory by the likes of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau on which much of our government is based requires that people get together collectively and construct that contract. ...

Whoa, you're throwing together a very disparate salad there. Hobbes and Rousseau go together, but not with Locke. Whether one thinks its valid or not today, Hobbes and Rousseau invented that natural state of man line, a pure fiction. They had no anthropology to speak of and simply fabricated it. To control the man in the state of nature they then require society and government. Neither of them have any time for moral behaviour self imposed. Rousseau in particular with regard to morals practised what he preached and was an utterly amoral bastard, a perfect forbearer for the French revolution and the Reign of Terror. The US founders spent most of their time not on how to subdue the natural state of man, though yes that too is part of their construction, but on how to subdue the institution of government created by man. They (Locke, founders) relied on moral codes, heavily Christian influenced, to look after individual behaviour, and believed democratic government had no chance without it.

Jefferson, concerning the consequences of the practice of slavery, a severe moral flaw in the 18th century US:

...And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.--But it is impossible to be temperate and to pursue this subject through the various considerations of policy, of morals, of history natural and civil. We must be contented to hope they will force their way into every one's mind.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s28.html

 

[mheslep]

I think that Machiavelli is often misconstrued, especially as most people know his writing only secondhand. In addition to the debate about the purpose of his writing (there's a common belief among scholars, probably minority but possibly majority, that he *didn't* support autocratic rule at all; this is well-supported by circumstances but little primary evidence remains), he's usually viewed much too narrowly.
Having said that, I concur that Phrak's remembered phrase sounds out-of-character for the man.

I don't know about other evidence to support the Machiavelli-was-not-an-autocrat hypothesis, but I suggest you are mistaken that there's support for this in the Prince in those 'virtue' and 'respect' passages. Virtue was just another ploy to Mac.

For this reason a prince ought to take care that he never let's anything
slip from his lips that is not replete with the above-named five
qualities, that he may appear to him who sees and hears him altogether
merciful, faithful, humane, upright, and religious. There is nothing
more necessary to appear to have than this last quality, inasmuch as men
judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, because it belongs to
everybody to see you, to few to come in touch with you. Every one sees
what you appear to be, few really know what you are