Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince Analysis
Rousseau is there is no shadow of immoralism in Machiavelli’s doctrine. In fact, his realistic perspective created new concepts of governing. Other than that, Eidelberg’s opinion is “Machiavelli’s deification of the merely “human” is the unembellished meaning of humanism; it is the true source of Individualism and Capitalism, of Socialism and Communism, of Fascism and Nazism”. or in other words, he stated that human selfishness and ego is the source to produce human-based concept as an implementation of a leader characters meant by Machiavelli.
Despite the pro mentioned above, some people like Manfred J. Holler and Leo Strauss are in contra with Machiavelli thoughts. Manfred J. Holler (Holler, 2009) argue that “the handbook is meant to be a tool to develop power which is a necessary prerequisite for peace and order”. In which he indirectly agrees that “the prince” can use all means even cruelty to achieve their goals. Meanwhile, Leo Strauss doubted whether The Prince doctrine is still valid or not for modern …show more content…
The restrictive social policies can be in a form of curfew and blocking internet access or limiting internet access for the people at this present time. It also includes restriction for intellectuals, students, or other social groups because they are considered as a threat to the regime because of the knowledge they have—might be a rebel if they smart. So, students or intellectuals activities in North Korea are monitored by Kim Il-sung Socialist Youth League under Korean Workers Party—to prevent revolt. The purpose of these restrictions are to prevent people from developing trust among them that can be used as the basis for mobilized political opposition. Because the development of independent civil society is seen as stumbling bloc for democratic