Pros And Cons Of Machiavelli

Amidst the ample political discourse occurring in contemporary America, it’s hard to imagine how the political dissent that surrounds today’s Americans can be seen as positive. If the general public is so upset, isn’t that a sign that the system is broken? However, if one is to examine the scope of history and theory, one would find that disagreement–no matter how avid– does not immediately equal the dysfunction of the state. Machiavelli, who lived in times and societies more corrupt and dictatorial than that of modern day America, hypothesized that class conflict can only ever be good for a state. That being said, people should also be mindful of the nature of concerns raised and the nature of social class when class conflict arises. Though

In either, ambition leads to the downfall of both, whether it is a government run by the populace or by the elite. For “In the [elite] there is a great desire to dominate and in the [populace] merely the desire not to be dominated.” And regarding the fuel for the ambition amongst the elite, “the ‘have-nots’ who wish to have or the [populace,] ‘haves’ who are afraid of losing what they have.” The elite and the populace need to satisfy each other’s desires and ambitions. To entrust caretaking of power exclusively in the hands of the elite fulfills their ambition, but it also gives them absolute power, without any threat of consequence if they are to infringe civil liberties. To entrust to the populace will keep the elite in check from taking advantage of a working-middle class, but will quickly descend into chaos and thusly an authoritarian state, as the people will inevitably choose a new “some man of standing” to speak on their behalf. Ideally, the populace and elite should cede to each other. Machiavelli believes that the most successful states must balance the ambitions of both the populace and elite by having the elite fund protection of the populace and the populace powers the workforce that generates revenue for the