Throughout the beginning of this semester we’ve studied numerous political theorists and their revolutionary contributions to modernity as we know it. None of them were more radically convincing than Niccolo Machiavelli and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who both wrote compelling arguments on how society should be structured. In “The Prince”, Machiavelli took a very cynical and harsh approach to leadership whereas Rousseau, in “The Social Contract”, took an open minded approach. Rousseau’s ideas were far more convincing because he was driven by passion for truth, and through the test of time equality and liberty how proved to be the keys to a prosperous state, while Machiavelli’s harsh tactics have all crumbled under serious stress. As to not discredit
…show more content…
“From this arises the question: whether it is better to be loved or hated. One would like to be both but it is difficult to combine them, so it is far better to be feared than loved… for love is secured by a bond of gratitude which men break when it is advantageous , but fear is secured by dread of punishment which is always effective” (pg. 10). He was not concerned with public opinion or morality so long as the preservation of the state was the goal. In many ways Machiavelli pioneered a new form of leadership that indeed aided in the expansion of many European nations, but over time this overzealous, immoral leadership would prove to be the very downfall of well-established …show more content…
“And it was found to be useful for one man to have provisions enough for two, equality disappeared, property was introduced, work became necessary, and vast forests were transformed into pleasant fields which had to be watered with the sweat of men, and where slavery and misery were soon to germinate and flourish with the crops” (pg. 133). In an ever so poetic fashion he dismembered the classic notion of society as a sophisticated institution and shed light on the evils it produces. He argued using the example of Spartan society, that in equality all would be content and there would be no need for corrupt legalism. “The unique case of Sparta, where the laws concerned mainly the education of children and where Lycargus established morals so well that it was almost unnecessary to add laws, laws restrain men without changing them” (pg.
“From this arises the question: whether it is better to be loved or hated. One would like to be both but it is difficult to combine them, so it is far better to be feared than loved… for love is secured by a bond of gratitude which men break when it is advantageous , but fear is secured by dread of punishment which is always effective” (pg. 10). He was not concerned with public opinion or morality so long as the preservation of the state was the goal. In many ways Machiavelli pioneered a new form of leadership that indeed aided in the expansion of many European nations, but over time this overzealous, immoral leadership would prove to be the very downfall of well-established …show more content…
“And it was found to be useful for one man to have provisions enough for two, equality disappeared, property was introduced, work became necessary, and vast forests were transformed into pleasant fields which had to be watered with the sweat of men, and where slavery and misery were soon to germinate and flourish with the crops” (pg. 133). In an ever so poetic fashion he dismembered the classic notion of society as a sophisticated institution and shed light on the evils it produces. He argued using the example of Spartan society, that in equality all would be content and there would be no need for corrupt legalism. “The unique case of Sparta, where the laws concerned mainly the education of children and where Lycargus established morals so well that it was almost unnecessary to add laws, laws restrain men without changing them” (pg.