machevelli , marx, and locke.

[Hidden.Shaman]

When I read it I didn't get the troll vibe from it . I laughed out loud at times . I just thought he was honest and showing off his knowledge . Giving the new prince a foundation to work from .

He def. Bashes his hometown , and tried to steer away from bashing religion , but you can tell he was tempted by bringing it up .

Iono , can you guys explain the troll part a little more . I'm not to egotistical to admit something went over my head if so.

 

[The Real]

Actually Machiavelli was making far deeper points than what was on the surface. He was making a critique about how absurd the monarchy itself was and even made points against religion. Further still he satirized and insulted the very prince he was supposed to be educating and he didn't get it at all

There's a lot of good work coming out now about how our picture of him as a scheming, immoral pragmatist is completely off-base and about his grounding in the Republican tradition.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

There's a lot of good work coming out now about how our picture of him as a scheming, immoral pragmatist is completely off-base and about his grounding in the Republican tradition.

your future employers on your job application, brehs.

 

[tmonster]

(1) Locke would argue that Machiavelli represents the interests of monarchs who rule without the consent of the people. Why would he reach that conclusion? Marx would argue that Locke represents the ideology of capitalism even before the emergence of modern industry. Why would Marx reach that conclusion?

Locke believed that gov was divinely ordained to adjudicate Natural law and the affairs of man(see two treatises on gov. chap 2, sect 13). Machiavelli believed in the supreme authority of the monarch to manage a flawed mankind in the endeavor of generating wealth a secondary form of power (his economic concerns in the organizing of conquest are clearly expressed in the prince), and the expression of that authority-be it through carrot or stick- was only mitigated by the recognition of the unequivocal martial might of the "dumb" mob/majority. Where locke's tenets are completely driven by morality and "natural" justice, Machiavelli is strictly driven by self-interest, the acquisition/maintenance of power and the avoidance of death. Where Locke's looks to surpass/bypass the natural "diffidence" in men through government and towards a more peaceful society, Machiavelli looks to show the monarchy how to take advantage of it, in their goals of maintaining power over their subjects.

and oh yeah...Lockes was racist