Power By Niccolo Machiavelli, Hannah Arendt, And Karl Emil

In chapter three, Machiavelli explains why it is harder to maintain a new state rather than a hereditary one. A main reason is because the people of the town will quickly try to put a new ruler in charge thinking he will be better than the last one. The people do have an input on who is in charge and that is important. If the people had no say in who was in charge it would be a

Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince give the world an insight on his thought about those who rule, virtue, military power, and human nature. He elaborates on his ideal prince who must take power, but also maintain power. The Prince is extremely relevant in modern society and often looked upon as the beginning of modern political thinking. Machiavelli gives this prince an outline of the tools needed to maintain power and reinforces these ideas by giving examples of other leader’s successes and failures. Machiavelli believes that the prince must complete understand the balance between war and government. Understanding this balance and being fluent in both politics and war is crucial for maintaining power. Politicians today still use some of the tactics given by

“The state is the highest achievement of man, a progressive and elaborate creation of his free will. The individual, the leader, the people, cooperate in maintaining it.” This idea of state was put forth by Niccolo Machiavelli in The Prince, which was in essence a ruler’s handbook to governing and maintaining his land. Machiavelli conjured his theories for government by basing his ideas in his belief that men, especially men in power, tend to follow the same directions, and therefore by looking at past leaders and their follies we can better determine how to run a state. “Men are always the same and are animated by the same passions that lead them fatally to the same decisions, acts, an results…. That one can foresee the course of

Niccolò Machiavelli was an activist of analyzing power. He believed firmly in his theories and he wanted to persuade everyone else of them as well. To comment on the common relationship that was seen between moral goodness and legitimate authority of those who held power, Machiavelli said that authority and power were essentially coequal.9 He believed that whomever had power obtained the right to command; but goodness does not ensure power. This implied that the only genuine apprehension of the administrative power was the attainment and preservation of powers which indirectly guided the maintenance of the state. That, to him, should have been the objective of all leaders. Machiavelli believed that one should do whatever it took, during the given circumstance, to keep his people in favor of him and to maintain the state. Thus, all leaders should have both a sly fox and ravenous wolf inside of him prepared to release when necessary.10

According to Machiavelli, there are a few situations in which a leader can take power, each with varying levels of upkeep. The first is by sheer luck or buying land, which he explains is easy to acquire but hard to maintain. In the text, Machiavelli writes, “Although, they have no difficulty on the way as they go flying along, all their difficulties arise when they have landed” (Machiavelli 28). Because the new leader has no experience or loyal army it will be extremely challenging to stay in power. On the other hand, if a state is won by the new leaders abilities and talent he will have a much easier time (Machiavelli 24). Machiavelli also mentions many times the importance of having a loyal military. Being the commander of the Army of Italy,

People are unlikely to overthrow a ruler that they fear, for they dread the punishments of failure. If the ruler is not feared by the people, he will eventually upset enough of them that they will rise up against him. They will overthrow him because of his perceived weakness, and his name and image will be shamed in the eyes of both his government and his people. Machiavelli believes that the state is completely separate from the ruler’s private life. No matter how immoral or heartless the ruler may be in private, only his public image is important. A ruler can be a terrible, sleazy person on their own time, and when not involved with matters of the state, but at any time when the leader is involved in politics and the state, you cannot afford to injure the image of the ruler or else anarchy will develop. With this kind of rebellion can come revolution, war, and many other tragedies that could be otherwise avoided.

Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince examines the nature of power and his views of power are still somewhat in existence today. I'll discuss this in this essay, emphasizing the following theses. Machiavelli discusses power over the people, dictatorial power, and power with people, shared power. While it is possible for power with to attain greater prevalence in society, it will not completely eliminate power over. In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses two distinct groups of people, the political elite, including nobles and other princes, and the general public. Today in the United States, the first group, the political elite, includes political leaders, religious leaders, business leaders and the leaders of

achiavelli presents a unique view on governing a state. Machiavelli believes the ruling Prince should be the only authority that

In the novel The Prince, Niccoló Machiavelli gives advice regarding what qualities and actions are beneficial to those acquiring and holding their own state or principality. He discusses different ways in which a person can attain a principality, and based on that way, what one should do to maintain it. He talks about the manner in which such a leader should make decisions, what qualities they should possess, and how they should be seen by the public. It is evident in the case of Maximilien Robespierre, an influential figure during the French Revolution, that he rose to power because he followed Machiavelli’s advice and fell out of power when he began to not follow it. When this behavior is compared to those of modern leaders, it is clear that Machiavelli’s advice concerning coming into power, qualities a leader should have, and the manner in which a leader should make decisions is still highly

The Prince was written during a time of political turmoil and instability in Italy. In a land where city-states fought for power, empires desired domination, and neighboring countries favored control there was a void in political solidity. Machiavelli’s desire for this same conquest is prevalent in his work. He demonstrates his need for political advancement and his capabilities, as well as the necessity of the unification of Italy. By designating a set of rules or guidelines in government Machiavelli suggests that politics and ethics can be separated and focuses on how ethics, freewill, perception, and human nature all play a major role in governing an entity.

Some theorists believe that ‘power is everywhere: not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere… power is not an institution, nor a structure, nor possession. It is the name we give to a complex strategic situation in a particular society. (Foucault, 1990: 93) This is because power is present in each individual and in every relationship. It is defined as the ability of a group to get another group to take some form of desired action, usually by consensual power and sometimes by force. (Holmes, Hughes &Julian, 2007) There have been a number of differing views on ‘power over’ the many years in which it has been studied. Theorist such as Anthony Gidden in his works on structuration theory attempts to integrate basic

This Machiavellian doctrine, (“the end justifies the means,”) suggests the idea that if the goals [of the state] are beneficial and accomplished, the ambidextrous, deceptive, and corruptive practices utilized to achieve the goal are acceptable and in many circumstances recommended. Specifically, the characteristics Machiavelli felt were necessary for a successful a ruler in the sixteenth century derived from his ideas about statesmanship & warcraft, virtue, and popular goodwill. Considering Machiavelli’s prestige – several of his ideas traveled internationally and are still examined and observed today. In the final analysis, while the differences between the characteristics necessary for a successful ruler in the sixteenth and the twentieth-twenty first century are evident, the similarities are

Relying on the needs of the society of that time, Machiavelli comes to the conclusion that the most important task is the formation of a single Italian state (Machiavelli 15). Developing his thoughts, the author comes to the following inference: only a prince can become a leader capable of leading people and building a unified state. It is not a concrete historical personality but someone abstract, symbolic, possessing such qualities that in the aggregate are inaccessible to any living ruler. That is why Machiavelli devotes most of his research to the issue of what qualities should the prince possess to fulfill the historical task of developing a new state. The written work is constructed strictly logically and objectively. Even though the image of an ideal prince is abstract, Machiavelli argues that he should be ruthless, deceiving, and selfish.

He goes deeper to say that if a prince who occupies these cities does not destroy it, he risk the probable outcome of a revolution. The second step is to live there in person to establish loyalty and the third step is letting the people live by its own laws, but establish a small government who is loyal to you to keep it friendly. Furthermore, he believes anyone can inherit a kingdom, but no one can rule it with natural leadership. This kind of leadership is what makes great leaders in history such as Moses or Cyrus. In addition a leader should not try to buy his subjects. A prince needs to eliminate his enemies and do so all at once. Additionally he explains the level of evil that should be done in order to rise to power. Machiavelli argues that each city is populated by two groups of citizens: common people and nobles. When a noble leader is chosen, he is in constant threat of rebellion by other nobles who feel they are on the same level as the prince. When a common is chosen it is better, because he

In essence, Machiavelli’s ideal principality sustains a genuine sense of morality behind the violence that “must be subjected in order to maintain stability.” Looking at his plans subjectively,