Why Is Machiavelli Vouched For The Ideal Government

In today’s age, there’s many different ideas being tossed around in regards to what makes a good government. For every argument, there is a counter argument, and so on and so forth, until one reaches the conclusion that maybe there’s no one right way. After all, it’s impossible to please everyone, as it goes with human nature that someone will disagree with even the most pleasant idea. However, that doesn’t mean that there are not bad ideas. A long history of governments both good and bad have shown that there are some common mistakes that certain regimes have made, mistakes that Machiavelli vouched for as ideal traits for the ideal government. Among these ideals, both the assumption that humans are inherently bad and the idea that the end

He was quite a cynic of the idea that people could do something kind and not be taken advantage of for it. This opinion was communicated quite clearly in chapter 15, when he was talking about the fancifulness of man; “For there is such a difference between how men live and how they ought to live that he who abandons what is done for what is ought to be done learns his destruction rather than his preservation.” However, he did argue that a prince should strive to appear kind and liberal, even if he is taking measures to do the opposite of what his image may imply. Machiavelli brings up this idea several times throughout his work, like the introduction of chapter 16; “Beginning with the first qualities… I say that to be considered liberal is good.” Machiavelli reads as rather hypocritical here, as while he assumes the worst of the intentions of the people, he still calls for the prince to appear as compassionate. Respect and trust in a relationship goes both ways, and if a prince wishes to have the goodwill and cooperation of his people, he must treat them as his equals, rather than his

He states this in chapter 18; “... if a prince succeeds in conquering and holding this state. His means are always judged honorable and everywhere praised…” From a moral standpoint, this argument is wrong because it completely ignores the possible side effects and outcomes of not caring about how something is achieved, just as long as it is achieved. It also goes against logic to say this, because how can the court of humanity be so simple as to let something slide just because it brought something good? Humanity does not like liars and deceivers, especially in these modern times when information is so easy to obtain. No, if the truth gets out, the prince will lose any and all order that he had, as he loses the respect and goodwill of his people. There’s many examples of democratic leaders who lost the respect of their people in this way, like Richard Nixon. Nixon was well liked up until the truth about Watergate came out, turning the tides of the American people against him. This example proves that lying does not benefit anyone, and it certainly does not benefit