Machiavelli Freewrite/Questions

1.       Can a person be respected without being cruel?

2.       Can a passive person be a leader if they enact cruel punishments for uprisings in the society?

When we did a free write at the beginning of this section, I wrote about what a government should have, and mainly what qualities a leader should posses. And one of the main qualities I thought that a leader of anything should have is that they have to be respectable. If there is no quality about them that the society can respect, and then their reign is going to be fruitless, similar to Sisyphus pushing the rock up the hill for all of eternity, always fighting against the forces of gravity. Anyways, when it comes to Machiavelli, I think that his description of a leader being cruel to be effective in his ways is in a ways the same as respect. If a leader is cruel, the population will have respect for him, but that respect isn’t a good kind of respect; it is basically fear. This kind of leader will either be revolted against or assassinated, in a government in this era.  In a utopia, which will happen when pigs fly, a leader will gain the respect of his citizens by acting the way a respectable leader acts, unbiased, confident (but accepts criticism), approachable, aggressive (but not overly), intelligent, thinks through situations in a timely manner, and thinks about what will happen when different acts are put into effect. I am sorry to say, but this reminds me of the King of Rohan in Lord of the Rings. He had most of these qualities, but the most important one was that he was human, not a god of some sort. His people could relate to him and his life, and this in turn made him respectable. Now that I have ranted, I am going to finish this before I can rant even more.

Machiavelli

1. Why does he feel it is important to justify being miserly?  I didn’t completely understand what he meant by this.
2.   What is Machiavelli’s difference between reputation and reality?

A miser is described a person that hoards food and other goods to make it.  I think what Machiavelli meant by this in order to be a successful leader, you must be able to recognize how  every type of society lives.  If he acts a miser, then it helps him see what the people are going through, and how he can lead to benefit everyone.

Another thing that i found interesting that Machiavelli wrote was how he thought the time period of a leader should be.  Today in the U.S. presidents are elected to a four-year term.  I think Machiavelli would have dislike this strategy because he felt a leader had to be there a long period of time before they could establish themselves as a leader.  Four years is not enough time to be able to get all your leadership ideas out and pursuing ways to lead the country.

Free Write-Machiavelli

Chris Kurz

ENG 121

March 18th, 2008

Questions

1.) Does a leader need to be selfish in order for his/her country to be taken seriously and advance in worldwide society?

2.) Machiavelli says that friendships or deals that come through bribery cannot be trusted. What does that say about controlling interest groups and major donors to modern day campaigns?

Oh crap! I woke up in the middle of the night and remembered I forgot to do my free write. So now it is 5:30 a.m., and I am thinking about Machiavelli. He would have a much harder time trying to get things together in the dark to write at this time of day.

Anyway, what struck me as interesting in Machiavelli’s writing was the amount of thought that he put into his ideas. He obviously spent a great deal of time trying to wrap his mind around the concept of love and fear as related to how his society functioned. I wonder if he ever had aspirations of becoming a politician but could not go through with it because he felt the need to be loved too much. Sometimes I wonder if some of the pieces we read are written more about the author but disguised as an essay about their society or surroundings.

Most of Machiavelli’s ideas are very astute observations about what it must feel like be a politician. For all the heat that politicians take from the press, the public and others, think about what it must be like to try and sleep at night for them. Throughout the course of the day you are placed in the position of making decisions. Once those decisions have been made, then they are questioned. Next people form judgements about you based on the decisions. Nevermind that the people may not be fully informed about whatever issue is at hand, they will crucify the decision maker for not agreeing with their point of view. It is hard not to want to be feared rather than loved. It is much easier to piss everyone off than it is trying to please everybody.

Probing Freewrite;)

Keely Boulton

1.) Throughout “The Prince”, Machiavelli seemed to say that it was alright for a prince to do immoral and unjust things in order to achieve his goals, while he must stay publically above reproach.  Should this be true of any ruler?

2.)  Machiavelli alludes to the idea that sometimes good can come our of evil deeds.  Is it possible for good to come from evil actions?

What struck me most about Machiavelli was his pinpoint on the corruptness of human nature.  He seems to point out well that we are all flawed in some way, and that sometimes it is neccesary formen to be immoral.  But I do not think, nor have I seen examples in my life, of good things coming from evil actions.  For example if someone tells a lie that may cover up thier wrongdoings for the moment, the lie will eventually come back to them in a negative way.  If we cheat on an exam we will most likely get a better grade, but this does not mean that we will not be expelled from that class or even school.  I would not agree with Machiavelli in his view that good can come from evil or that it is right for a prince to act wrongly behind is people’s back.  There is no reason this should happen and I think when it does happen, somehow those decisions will affect them in a negative way. 

Machiavelli

Michael Chopp

Ariana Paliobagis

ENG121

3/17/08

Machiavelli Questions & Free Write

1. Machiavelli talks about feared leaders and loyal leaders… Which can be said to be more beneficial to the country?

2. Do you think a ruler can put aside personal beliefs for the better of the people, even if the ruler doesn’t agree?

 

For question #1, i believe it can be said that both can be true for different reasons. For a feared ruler, it is thought that the people would obey the orders and laws created by the ruler. Also, the tough, hard-nosed behavior of the ruler would lead to respect from the people, proving they believe in his ways. On the negative side, if the ruler is feared but  isn’t taking care of the country, people will eventually revolt no matter the power of the ruler.  Back in history, rulers were killed all he time to get them off the throne. This could happen, not in our lifetime, but impeachment could occurr. As for loyal leaders, yes they obey the wishes of the people and look for their bets interests. However, there is no power or discipline in this type of ruling. It would allow the people to control the ruler and “walk all over him/her”. I believe chaos would eventually break out from the many opinions of the people and the ruler not being able to fulfill each one of their needs. Displine and toughness needs to be shown to the people to gain tolerance, with loyalty following after.

Power Corrupts

Post For Machiavelli

 

1.)   Why does a ruler need to have power by fear why can a ruler be someone people look at as a peer?

2.)   Machiavelli talks about “enjoying the fruits of power” do you think he thinks people become rulers for themselves or for the people.

 

 

Free write on question 1

 

      Machiavelli says that ruler’s cant always be nice or moral but to keep power they must be cruel and dishonest sometimes. I couldn’t disagree more. I am not around in this time period but the position of a ruler is not for power it is to help the people make their kingdom or country a better place. Machiavelli’s beliefs on power are based on the ruler not on the society. Rulers shouldn’t be feared at all, they should be respected and trusted. The position of a leader was created to help the people not to should strive for power and be a leader for just the power aspect of it.

Drew Walters

Eng 121

 

Machiavelli

 

1. If a ruler is respected first, is there any need to be feared?

 

2. When is it ok for the government to oppress a few in order to benefit the group?  

  

The first thing that comes to mind is when Machiavelli says something about being cruel and very harsh the first few times will set a good enough example to not have to punish many others. But this is an effort to become respected, and intense punishments would not be necessary if the ruler was already respected. Rulers and representatives can earn this respect by maintaining a good reputation by the public; by eliminating corruption in their government and earning the publics trust. So clearly no, if rulers have the respect of their people then there is no need for them to be feared.

free write

Chelsey Colbert

2 questions from Machiavelli

1. 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?
2. 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).

What should the costs of stability extend to ?

 

 

Felix J Grobler

Ariana Paliobagis

English 121

17^th of March 2008

 

Machiavelli Questions

 

• Machiavelli concerned himself with how governments work and what constitutes to their stability. In his eyes the most important thing for the people was a stable government. Then to what lengths should leaders go to ensure stability (martial law, infringement of rights, etc.) ?

 

• Machiavelli abstains from considering morals when he discusses political theory. Do you think leaders have to be amoral in order to be effective, or is there a middle ground ?

 

 

 

 

Freewrite:

 

Personally I believe that our rights should never be infringed upon, no matter what the situation. But, unfortunately this is happening all around us as today. The patriot act for example was introduced to protect us from terrorism, but at the same time it can be used to spy on peaceful and unsuspecting civilians. As with many things there needs to be a balance between the forces, our rights need to be protected but sometimes martial law might be required to restore order. I think the most important thing to consider is the purpose behind government in general, it is in place to protect the people. My rights end where your begin. This means that there are limits to everybody’s freedoms, a limit is reached when it the action infringes on somebody else’s rights.

Governments may sometimes need to resort to superior force to restore order and stability to their people, but they should never forget their purpose, which first and foremost is to protect the individual and unalienable rights of the people.

Contemporary Rulers’ Longevity

1.      Machiavelli says that there must be a proper balance between two opposing character traits, such as cruelty and clemency, or liberality and meanness.  Are there two opposing traits that it is a bad thing if a person has a little bit of both, such as pacifism and a desire to kill?

2.      Machiavelli says that a ruler must have a good balance of two opposing traits, but how long should that ruler be in power for those traits to balance out each other?

 

In response to question two, I think that this would not work in the United States because many leadership terms are not long enough for people to see the results.  If a leader is selfish in the beginning, hoarding their money, then they could utilize their money for important or necessary things later in life.  However, that time period may be much longer than how long they are in a leadership position. When Machiavelli wrote this, his country was going through much turmoil and he just wanted there to be stability.  Their leaders were constantly changing so Machiavelli was an advocate for a strong ruler to come in and hold office for a long time.  However, in our day and age, we believe that it is better for us if a ruler is only in office for a short time, for example, only either 4 or 8 years for the President of the United States.  This is exactly what Machiavelli was trying to fight, a short term leader, as he expected a good leader to be in power for much longer than that.

This is directly related to the fact that it takes an extended period of time to have two opposing characteristics balance out.  Machiavelli says that if a person starts out as stingy and amasses his wealth, this may be frowned upon initially but later in life he would be able to distribute some of that wealth.  Otherwise, a person who is very generous may give away all of their money too quickly and become bankrupt, causing himself to become ineffective. 

Thus, Machiavelli has good ideas but I don’t think that they transfer very well to the mindset of the US.  He lived in a time when typical leaders would rule for many years, but now, we believe that leadership should be changing fairly often to prevent any kind of monarchy or tyranny, retaining our democratic republic.

Machaivelli Free Write

1) Why does Machiavelli believe it is better to be feared than loved because when people think of the great leaders weren’t they ones who were loved?

2) Machiavelli considers his writing to be a ‘code of conduct’ for leaders to follow but what happens when people who become leaders do not possess these shrewd qualities?

I believe Machiavelli’s idea of being feared over being loved is a bit extreme. When people recall the great leaders of the past they often respond in a highly positive manner. People look up to leaders who are moral, just, and good (or at least who appear to be) and I think that it is important to have a positive view of your leaders…why else would someone want to grow up to be president. While this is a little off topic it reminds me of the commercial from the 80’s “no one ever says I wanna be a junkie when I grow up”, well no one ever says “I wanna grow up to be a shrewd, conniving, FEARED leader.” Being a role model is part of the job of being a leader and it is important to possess qualities that people love as opposed to fear. I looked up Machiavelli’s work on wikipedia, and although it cannot be a throughly trusted source, I found it interesting that Machiavelli had an influence on “prominent figures such as William Shakespeare, Sir Walter Raleigh, Francis Bacon, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Adolf Hitler” The last one I found particularly interesting considering how much Hitler was feared and loathed…and now the 10 mins is up!!!

love and fear

is it better to be feared rather than loved?

when i hear that i say no. love is far more constructive than fear.  in the terms that macheavelli is trying to express though i would agree.  people in general need government without it, senselessness.  coming from the veiw of a government  the creation of order and law stems from respect.  to gain respect and reverace you must be stern, and at times unweilding.  the feelings of fear do not reguire hate, and i think that is the point that machiavelli stresses through out the passage. to be feared and not hated does not reguire love but rather respect.  it is  contridictory to respect and hate.  hate is the ruin of anything it touches.  for a people not to love their government is not a new thing.  we do not need to love them always.  they do need to return favor toward the people and give them the necessities of life.  when those necessities are not there that is where the misery festers which leads to decention and the fall from power.  it is in the governments best interest to keep the people happy and busy for they are where the progression of the government lies.

Machiavelli Free Write

Bethany Van Dyke

English 121-31

March 17, 2008

1. It seems that Machiavelli supports leaders being deceptive and mean.  Are these really good qualities for a leader to possess?  Should leaders trick or lie to their people just to save his /her reputation and keep power?  
2.  In general, Machiavelli believes that “the end justifies the means”.  Is this really the best principle for a leader (or the government) to use to justify their actions (whether they are good or bad)? 

 Response to question 1:

I’m not so sure I agree with Machiavelli’s ideas of a good leader.  Yes, some of the qualities he mentions are essential but most of them seem like qualities a leader should try to stay away from.  To me, a leader should be as honest as possible with all that he does.  Machiavelli would say that a leader should do whatever it takes to get something accomplished (even if that means being dishonest).  I just don’t think that this is right.  What also bugs me is how Machiavelli says a leader should pretend to have “good” qualities,  but should be able to put them aside when he needs.  When I read Machiavelli and think about the leader he describes, all I can think of is “fake”–aq leader who feels that “the end justifies the means”  and who feels that he can do whatever he wants to get things done.  When I think of people in my own life who act in such a manner (deceptive etc), I just know that i tend to lose my trust in them.  Yes they may get things accomplished, but at the same time they step on everyone elses toes and do whatever it takes to get ahead. In my book this is wrong.  People should look out for themselves to some extent, but to be selfish, mean, or deceptive is wrong and leads to distrust of those around you.

Post 7- Machiavelli

Michael Piccone

March 17, 2008

Leviathan

Post 7- Machiavelli

 

1. Do you think a leader is more effective if he is feared by his people or loved by them?

Machiavelli states on page 131 that “…it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity.”

2. Do you think a leader should have the authority to do things that are wrong for a society? If not then who should? Who deems if these actions are right or wrong in the first place?

I like the Machiavelli piece. He talks about what great leadership is and the skills needed for it. I enjoy the fact that right out fo the gate he states that he doesn’t agree with traditional thought of the conduct of a prince. I like his quote “for a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what dystroys him among so much that is evil.” I like this quote because I believe it too. I don’t think that any leader should be so convinced of his own ideas that he is not willing to accept advice or opinions from others. I believe that a stubborn leader is not what is best for any society. Just look at President Bush. He was so stubborn that he invaded iraq even after the U.N. said they wouldn’t help us. And now we are stuck in a conflict that a growing number of people say we should not be in. And yet because of the stubbornness of the people in leadership positions, we are still there spending $275 million per day (National Priorities Project-www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home).

Machiavelli

Benjamin Burns

Araina Paliobagis

2 Questions about Machiavelli

3/17/08

 

 

1.       Machiavelli explains that it is better to be loved than feared.

Do you believe that you will more power when you are greatly feared? Or greatly loved?

2.       Machiavelli states “Therefore it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them.”

Do you agree with this statement? Or do you think that a leader should actually possess these qualities?

    I personally believe that it is equally important for a leader to appear to possess the qualities needed to run a country and to actually have these qualities. When you elect a leader, you should make sure the candidate has a good appearance and it is important to listen the debates. Listening to these really helped me make my decision on who i am electing for the next presidency. I also believe that in a certain aspect and in certain situations, being feared or being loved has equal power. In some occasions, it is better for a leader to be feared and that ruler will have total power, as goes for the loved leader. I believe that a feared leader has more “absolute” power but will be overthrown. A loved leader will be a leader that can be gullible but will be in a power position for a long time.

Machiavelli

Carley Buttelman

English 121

Mrs P

3/17/08

 

1.       Should rulers be moral? Will they be more successful if they are not?

2.       Can Machiavelli’s Prince be taken seriously due to the fact that it was written after the fall of Florence?

Free Write to number 2

In the introduction of Machiavelli it says that he wrote the Prince after the fall of Florence and was replaced by a powerful autocrat Lorenzo De’ Medio. I have a tough time really thinking his way of thinking could work in ruling a country considering it had fallen. Why would people rule the way Machiavelli believed too knowing that it didn’t work? I know I wouldn’t listen to a ruler that had a unsuccesful throne. Its hard to take him seriously knowing that his way of ruling didn’t work. I just also disagree with many things he says. He thinks that rulers must be cruel, dishonest, duplicitous, and manipulative (130). I know I don’t want our president to be these things and I don’t think these things will make a ruler be a better ruler. A ruler with these things are probably just looking out for himself and not the people he is ruling. Machiavelli’s ideas are not best way to rule a country and it’s hard to take him seriously.

How a Leader Should Act

 Samantha Kujala

3/16/08

ENGL 121

                                                          Questions:

1. Why should a ruler be somewhat feared, but not cruel and can not be too kind? How would that make a good ruler, beside him having a lot of power?

2. Why can’t a leader be someone who is more of a role model and not someone who is feared?   

Free write to question #2:           

          I disagree with how Machiavelli describes a ruler should act. I do not want a president who I am afraid of and scared that he could harm me in some way. A ruler should be someone who is more of a role model. In our government today, I think we do try to find a good president who is someone that we are willing to vote for to rule us. Voting can give us a selection and a way to find a president that we like and do not fear.            

         I think Machiavelli speaks of a very different time period and how maybe rulers in the past usually did rule. Machiavelli may have only known rulers to be feared and some of the greatest rulers may have been the most feared.            

         What is more important than having a good leader today, I think is that our president needs to be more concerned about the people’s needs and not his own. Machiavelli, I felt, was describing all these things a ruler needs to be most concerned with and that was that a ruler needs to be always thinking about himself. He makes it sound like a ruler needs to be always thinking about the way he acts and only how to improve himself so he can become a great leader. Machiavelli does not talk that much about how important it is for a ruler to be representing the people and doing what he can to serve everyone’s need. Anyone can go around thinking about themselves, why would we need a president if we did not want him to listen to us and to only think of himself? So, I think, what makes a good ruler is someone who does everything possible to meet the community’s needs and makes a lot of good changes in our economy.  

Post 7 – Machiavelli – Due Mon 3/17 by 11:59pm

Post the two probing and insightful questions that you are also bringing to class.  Select one of them and free write on it for approximately ten minutes; post the free write.  You can free write right in the posting box if you like. 

 Post is due Monday 17 March by 11:59pm.

 Do remember to bring the questions to class as well.