free write
Posted by chelseycolbert on March 17, 2008
Chelsey Colbert
2 questions from Machiavelli
- Machiavelli is presenting his audience with a delicate balance of how a leader should act. For example on pg 133 “and a prince should guard himself, above all things, against being despised and hated . . .” Is the prince guaranty or protection to stay in power really more important than the protection of the state?
- Do you think Machiavelli really thought that the delicate balance was actually important or do you think he was just trying to please the new ruler of Florence?
Free Write: I think Machiavelli’s system of government is ideal, but still unrealistic. Which is ironic because he wrote it because humans aren’t perfect; but with his guidelines they could be. He creates this delicate balance between what is right for the state and what is right for the ruler. My quote that I chose to illustrate this is “and a prince should guard himself, above all things, against being despised and hated . . .”; to me, he is saying that the importance of the prince overrules the safety of the state. But, if the state isn’t safe then how can a ruler’s position be safe. If people aren’t pleased with their ruler, they are going to get rid of him or her. To me, the state of security for both the state and the ruler are almost equally important, the state holds more importance to me though. If the state isn’t protected than the ruler won’t be as well; on the other hand, if the ruler isn’t protected then the state may not be as well. For example, if a country wages war on land A and the ruler does nothing to protect the people, than ruler A will probably get kicked to the curb. And, if ruler A gets kicked to the curb because his place wasn’t protected then land A might be especially vulnerable with no one to rule them. In the end, I think protection of the state is more important, a ruler can always be replaced (but maybe not with one in equally standing).
