Is a Machiavelli civilization a good idea.
I am new to the subject but of what I read it sounds interesting. Give it a read if you really want a good debate. It's kind of long but worth it.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_Machiavelli_define_power
Sounds good to me
Side Score: 6
|
 |
Way too many faults
Side Score: 8
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
Anyone who has debated with me for extended periods of time probably know that I'm pretty into a practicality with emotions put to the side. I feel that his view is sound. If we were united under Unitarian rule with a strong defense to protect from invaders and a good enough lifestyle in the civilization itself that that would be a good enough life. Side: Sounds good to me
|
1
point
People need food; this is why nations must have some sort of economy. The Machiavellian theory mostly ignores this. If you are looking at the ethics when The Prince was written, then it is important to understand that one's social class dictated what was acceptable and what was not. What was allowed for the class that owned and controlled everything was not generally allowed for the proletariat. This type of encouraged class warfare can be absolutely disastrous for a nation. It usually causes bloody revolutions and incapacitates the nation for several years. Look at Imperial Russia, and the current situation in Syria. The whole noble birth thing is also completely preposterous. Side: Sounds good to me
For the longest time a Machiavellian society would be the most ideal, in much a way that a Republic as explained by Plato would be ideal. The idea basically comes down to a dictator or regime of some kind that is noble and reasonable in its efforts to maintain peace and order in a society. In Plato's Republic, the dictator would be a philosopher who wishes to keep the people happy and educated. It's a comforting thought to have a leader who's goals are altruistic and well-intentioned. however, in the end, a society can't be guaranteed a good regime. Even with a regime that is truly well-intentioned, the consequences of its laws and regulations could still be very bad. And since it is under the rule of law, there isn't much that a civilization can do against its regime. Even in a Democratic Republic, as is in much of Western civilization, the most consequence an improper regime risks facing is not being re-elected. Considering that the consequence is the same for who tries to run against you, you are only as willing to shift your views as your opposition is. In the United States you'd think we'd have more of an advantage by having 50 states, but Federal government has become so powerful that much of the uses of the 50 states has been partly diminished. Therefore, I would say that much of the rationalization for the Federal government and for the British Parliament would be of a Machiavellian style. The people do not directly affect most of legislation, and the most we can do is try to fight back. However, since the system provides so much for us, it is often scary to think of what would happen if we just got rid of it all, or even worse, only some. Government has scared us into thinking that we need it in order to survive (through conditioning, schooling, and superstructure type media). So instead we depend on the government, and any politician that dissents from the modern acceptance of Federalism is labeled a radical, not only by government but by the people. They are hardly a threat against the major parties. So we always vote for bigger government, because the two parties we're voting for have plans to expand government power. In the United States, there may be only a certain amount we'd accept. Consider the support for the filibuster by Rand Paul. It was a moment that brought about bipartisan support for the denial of Machiavellian type government. The people seem to be done trusting government to just "do the right thing." The right thing, in government's sense, is to do nothing. The people must decide that for themselves, and with no leader to force his own morality unto the rest of the population, the morality of any individual is not a major threat to any others. Side: Way too many faults
1
point
First, would you be more in favor of it if you were said Machiavellian ruler? As in if you left wherever you live, moved to a place in the woods, then people came where you moved, would you want to run them democratically or like him? Second,Even with a regime that is truly well-intentioned, the consequences of its laws and regulations could still be very bad If you mean well, and put the people in check i think it would work. Therefore, I would say that much of the rationalization for the Federal government and for the British Parliament would be of a Machiavellian style Hardly. They seek to keep things free. They continually press rights on you and take then away, in a Machiavellian society you'd be given a certain set of rights, whatever your ruler decides, and that would be law. Anyone found abusing would be used as an example. Sure it's inhuman but does it hold the slightest sliver of working. Government has scared us into thinking that we need it in order to survive (through conditioning, schooling, and superstructure type media) Although that is true, the system I speak of would not switch out it's leaders, like the federal government does. When the leaders are switched out absolute rule is lost. In the United States, there may be only a certain amount we'd accept. Your civilization would get over it or a few would be trampled under it. The people seem to be done trusting government to just "do the right thing." The right thing, in government's sense, is to do nothing. The people would be forced to trust the government, and as for doing the right thing, the solitary leader would to keep his civilization happy, to an extent. Some would say in opposition of a Machiavellian government to simply look at North Korea. I'd protest that that is a bad example, a good example would be Russian communism done to a greater extent. Side: Sounds good to me
1
point
1
point
|
