Niccolo Machiavelli wrote "The Qualities of the Prince" as a guide to all of the rulers in Italy on how to rule, because what we now see as a country was then a large collection of city-states. In it, he effectively states his beliefs and supports them with examples that contradict his belief and the result of their failure. Many of Machiavelli's points make sense, not only for the princes of his time, but for the presidents of ours. One of my favorite controversial, thought provoking ideas that Machiavelli discusses in the Prince is that of whether to be generous or to be a miser. I agree that one who is too often generous will be expected to hand things out constantly. Being a miser, in a sense, is a good idea, because the money you may need later is saved for that time. Machiavelli says that "...if he is wise, not worry about being called a miser; for with time he will come to be considered more generous once it is evident that, as a result of his parsimony, his income is sufficient, he can defend himself from anyone who makes war against him, and he can undertake enterprises without overburdening his people..." This quote basically refers to the fact that in essence, a prince can do more for his people when he saves the money of the kingdom until it is needed for all, not needed for only a few. The better good of all at once is more important than the better good of a few at certain times.
I found this webpage and pulled an interesting quote from it that says "Machiavelli's book is absolutely practical and not at all idealistic. Leaving aside what government is "best" in an ideal world, The Prince takes for granted the presence of an authoritarian ruler, and tries to imagine how such a ruler might achieve success." I believe this quote sums up a strong purpose of Machiavelli's in writing The Prince.
http://www.emachiavelli.com/Prince%20and%20Mach%20summary.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment