NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a discussion of Machiavelli's works. I personally, think that three fundamental concepts apply.

1: "The ends, justify the means."

2:A leader objective should be his people's welfare, morals should not obstruct that objective

3:A prince's most important study should warfare.

Comments?

For the poll above, don't answer unless you haven't read at least a paragraph of some of Machiavelli's political writings.

This is a discussion of Machiavelli's works. I personally, think that three fundamental concepts apply.

1: "The ends, justify the means."

2:A leader objective should be his people's welfare, morals should not obstruct that objective

3:A prince's most important study should warfare.

Comments?
I read The Prince and forgot just about all of it. Maybe I'll pull it down off the bookshelf and re-read it, but probably not.

Machiavelli was a genius, and should his works be applied they would create a nigh-invincible country.

GO NO MORALS! GO MACHIAVELLI! GO... DISREGARDING EVERYONE ELSE BECAUSE YOU CAN JUST KILL THEM!

I read The Prince and forgot just about all of it. Maybe I'll pull it down off the bookshelf and re-read it, but probably not.
Read one 2-3 page chapter. You'll get the idea soon enough.

I read The Prince and forgot just about all of it. Maybe I'll pull it down off the bookshelf and re-read it, but probably not.
Here, this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=490419) outta help if you haven't seen it already.

Machiavelli was a genius, and should his works be applied they would create a nigh-invincible country.

GO NO MORALS! GO MACHIAVELLI! GO... DISREGARDING EVERYONE ELSE BECAUSE YOU CAN JUST KILL THEM!
Killing them might work. However, I doubt that would be the first choice on
Machiavelli's list on how to deal with an opponet.

Killing them might work. However, I doubt that would be the first choice on
Machiavelli's list on how to deal with an opponet.


It's not, since using them is better. BUT if you kill them, they can never stab you in the back later.

Read one 2-3 page chapter. You'll get the idea soon enough.Eh... not really. I seem to remember one about reliability mercenaries and auxillaries, then one on the types of Princedoms, another on how conquested lands react to their new masters, some on how a prince should spend his money - liberality with his own money being a bad thing, the metaphor of the Fox and the Lion, and finally it had an ongoing theme of virtu and fortuna throughout the book. It's quite varied. And concise. I like concise.

I think The Prince should be taken in context.
1) At the time the princedoms and duchies of Italy were constantly fighting among themselves and got invaded quite a bit by France and other kingdoms. So in a situation like this then most people would probably agree the means justifies the ends, especially if you're being wistful about the days of the Roman Empire. Machiavelli uses a lot of Roman examples.
2) Machiavelli was looking for a job in the Medici court. And the foreword or whatever really does kiss a lot of butt. As does the final couple of pages.

As for point 2. I think you're completely wrong. The Prince doesn't care about his subject's welfare, just so that it is enough that they do not hate him, but not enough to ruin him. Ideally he wants them to fear him as fear is stronger than love. Machiavelli, ever the cynic of human nature. Instead, the main concern of the Prince is the state, to keep it alive and functioning. This of course may serve to benefit the Prince, but also it benefits his subjects due to the increased wealth that can come with stability (and the prince, because he can tax this wealth).

Point 3? Eh... pretty much. The Prince should worry about the security of his state and keep his theiving grubby hands off of everything else and let the people figure it out for themselves. Has echos of similarity of the USA to me.

But if you really want to know what Machiavelli thought then read his Discourses on Livy. The guy loved republics. Try project Gutenberg or something to download the text.

It's not, since using them is better. BUT if you kill them, they can never stab you in the back later.
Yes. He did say that. If you fight someone, kill them. Don't take your sweet-fat time making them suffer, kill them, so they don't fight back.

The man was a genius who was way ahead of his time.

People who read his work should read some Friedrich Nietzsche as well.

Yes. He did say that. If you fight someone, kill them. Don't take your sweet-fat time making them suffer, kill them, so they don't fight back.

And I have been abiding by this principal since forever.

Alternatively, if killing is out of the question, do something to make them never again be a threat.

But if you really want to know what Machiavelli thought then read his Discourses on Livy. The guy loved republics. Try project Gutenberg or something to download the text. What makes you think I didn't read it?

Machiavelli acually favored something of a combination between the two.

Instead, the main concern of the Prince is the state, to keep it alive and functioning. Right, or wrong, to Machiavelli this WAS the people.

You do know he was being sarcastic, as he had been a poorly treated political prisoner, and was getting back at those who had caused his suffering, right?

The man was a genius who was way ahead of his time.

People who read his work should read some Friedrich Nietzsche as well.
Really? Please, give me a summary on this man's philosophy.

Some people read The Prince and think that it sums up Machiavelli’s thinking. You could not be farther from the truth. The Prince is heavily biased towards a despotic ruler because that was its intended audience.

Read his other writings and you will find that he firmly believed that a republic was the best form of government. He in no way argued that a ruler should be a tyrant who slaughters people to stay in power. Even in The Prince he argues that the best defense is in the hearts of the people: a ruler should tear down his fortresses to ensure he keeps in mind that the people’s favor is the best defense against invasion.

And I have been abiding by this principal since forever.

Alternatively, if killing is out of the question, do something to make them never again be a threat.
Right. Obviously, you read his works, whole, or part.

Some people read The Prince and think that it sums up Machiavelli’s thinking. You could not be farther from the truth. The Prince is heavily biased towards a despotic ruler because that was its intended audience.

Read his other writings and you will find that he firmly believed that a republic was the best form of government. He in no way argued that a ruler should be a tyrant who slaughters people to stay in power. Even in The Prince he argues that the best defense is in the hearts of the people: a ruler should tear down his fortresses to ensure he keeps in mind that the people’s favor is the best defense against invasion.
Rightto chap. Anyone who reads The Prince, and thinks they have Machiavelli down is sadly mistaken.

What makes you think I didn't read it?[quote]It was just a comment that The Prince isn't the only thing that Machiavelli wrote, which is what his reputation is based on. And I meant to use you in the plural sense. Addressing the comment to everyone. Like a reminder.

[quote]Machiavelli acually favored something of a combination between the two. Oooh, really? What makes you think that? Have you read the books recently, and could you give me a reference?

Right, or wrong, to Machiavelli this WAS the people.Again, I'm curious to know what makes you think that.

I look forward to your post.

Sun Tzu's Art of War should really be included in a discussion like this.

Little things like - Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer.

[QUOTE=The Parkus Empire]What makes you think I didn't read it?[quote]It was just a comment that The Prince isn't the only thing that Machiavelli wrote, which is what his reputation is based on. And I meant to use you in the plural sense. Addressing the comment to everyone. Like a reminder.

Oooh, really? What makes you think that? Have you read the books recently, and could you give me a reference?

Again, I'm curious to know what makes you think that.

I look forward to your post.
Well, for your first doggie treat, I'll answer that, MAchiavelli thought that a full-fledged democracy was unrealistic. As for example *feches Discourses*: "Titus Livius as well as all other historians affirm that nothing is more uncertain and inconstant then the multitiude; for it appears from what he relates of the actions of men, that in many instances the multitiude, having condemmed a man to death, bitterly lamented it, and most earnestly wished him back."
Later, he's goes on to explain, that a nether a prince, nor a people is entirely dependeble, therefor, power must be given to both, to keep both in check.

Next, I will say Machivelli commonely interchaned state, with people, when refering to the same ideas.

Ideally he wants them to fear him as fear is stronger than love.

BEEP! WRONG! "Continuing now with our list of qualities, let me say that every prince should prefer to be considered merciful rather then cruel..." -On Cruelty and Clemency: Whether it is Better to be Loved or Feared.

Why did you start a second thread on this?

To avoid typing things twice, here's my take on Mr. M:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11296189&postcount=20
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11296210&postcount=21
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11296227&postcount=22

BEEP! WRONG! "Continuing now with our list of qualities, let me say that every prince should prefer to be considered merciful rather then cruel..." -On Cruelty and Clemency: Whether it is Better to be Loved or Feared.
I thought he said that to avoid being hated. He wanted the prince to be feared and preferably loved but that feared was more important as men base things upon the realities of life. Men will more easily betray the one's they like than the one's they fear. It has been a while since I have read Machiavelli though, I could have pulled that from another text because I saw a Machiavelli text and another text from another source compared on some test a while back and I never could separate them after that because the ideas were so similar.

This is a discussion of Machiavelli's works. I personally, think that three fundamental concepts apply.

1: "The ends, justify the means."
An oversimplication. According to Macchiavelli, the ends do not justify the means under several circumstances:

A) The ends are corrupt or otherwise bad for the people.
B) The means are so bad that the harm they cause will outweigh the good of the ends.
C) The means harm the people -- since the leader's objective must always be the welfare of his people, then even the means he uses to reach his ends, must serve that end.

Since this covers just about any questionable action a leader might consider taking, I think it effectively undermines the "ends justifies the means" concept.

2:A leader objective should be his people's welfare, morals should not obstruct that objective
According to Macchiavelli, caring for the welfare of the people IS a moral objective. What he is saying is that the leader must not allow his personal morals to stop him from doing what he has to do (such as wage war) in order to fulfill his duty to the people.

3:A prince's most important study should warfare.
You leave out the question of WHY he should study warfare. It is so that he can avoid being conquered by enemies, preferably by the most effective means possible -- avoiding war altogether.

Comments?
I think you're going against your own observation -- you can't understand Macchiavelli without reading The Discourses. The Prince makes no sense unless it is read in conjuction with the longer book.

Really? Please, give me a summary on this man's philosophy.

http://www.pitt.edu/~wbcurry/nietzsche.html

I thought he said that to avoid being hated. He wanted the prince to be feared and preferably loved but that feared was more important as men base things upon the realities of life. Men will more easily betray the one's they like than the one's they fear. It has been a while since I have read Machiavelli though, I could have pulled that from another text because I saw a Machiavelli text and another text from another source compared on some test a while back and I never could separate them after that because the ideas were so similar.
Actually, in The Discourses, M makes it clear that a leader who is feared makes enemies of his people and will be overthrown eventually, if not by internal insurrection, then by his people taking sides with foreign invaders. What he actually argues is that leaders should maintain an honest balance between strength and compassion. He should remember that, while it is good to be liked, it's not his job to be the people's friend. They need to trust him -- trust that he will not harm them, that he will not lie to them or steal from them or treat them unfairly, but also trust that he will be tough enough to do what has to be done maintain peace, prosperity and liberty, which is what most people want.

Even a leader who comes across as very gentle and compassionate can achieve that. Even a pacifist leader, such as Ghandi, can do it.

Actually, in The Discourses, M makes it clear that a leader who is feared makes enemies of his people and will be overthrown eventually, if not by internal insurrection, then by his people taking sides with foreign invaders. What he actually argues is that leaders should maintain an honest balance between strength and compassion. He should remember that, while it is good to be liked, it's not his job to be the people's friend. They need to trust him -- trust that he will not harm them, that he will not lie to them or steal from them or treat them unfairly, but also trust that he will be tough enough to do what has to be done maintain peace, prosperity and liberty, which is what most people want.

Even a leader who comes across as very gentle and compassionate can achieve that. Even a pacifist leader, such as Ghandi, can do it.
Why did Ghandi get assassinated then? He was simply killed because of political expedience, is that the reward of love?

Anyway, well, one must fear the Prince in terms of not defying them. I mean, what you describe as fear was what I thought he described as hatred. If your people hate you then they will betray you. What I thought was that you had to be harsh enough to show that you mean business and get them to fear your wrath but at the same time earn respect through kindness, virtue and great works. At the very least that is what I remember from the Prince, he stated quite clearly in my book "it is much safer to be feared than loved" and then he went about to say that even though you might want to be fear that a prince should avoid being hated. This is all in chapter 17 of The Prince by Machiavelli and he makes it very clear that a Prince should try to be feared above all else, then loved if at all possible and especially not hated though.

This is a discussion of Machiavelli's works.

Yea! (I did a whole lot of course work on Machiavelli at university - 2 of the best profs for my poli sci course were Machiavelli specialists.)

I personally, think that three fundamental concepts apply.

1: "The ends, justify the means."

2:A leader objective should be his people's welfare, morals should not obstruct that objective

This is not quite true.

1) Machiavelli never said "the ends justify the means. The original wording that is usually translated as such is "si guarda al fine". A better translation would be "one must consider the final result" or "one must think of the final result".

Peter Bondanella and Musa make it abundantly clear that this is a misleading translation

The simplistic formula used to summarize Machiavelli's complex view of politics and ethics ('the end justifies the means') is actually a gross mistranslation that has erected an almost insurmountable barrier to an understanding of Machiavelli's thought. The mere mention of this phrase conjures up a vision of power-mad rulers pursuing immoral ends by even more immoral means, but Machiavelli never spoke of justification here and merely remarked that 'in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, where there is no impartial arbiter, one must consider the final result' (si guarda al fine). Even in its correct form, the concept is of moral interest.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=97573377

2) This is a misreading of Machiavelli's morality. He doesn't believe the implied message of "the ends justify the means" - that anything is OK as long as it allows you to achieve your goals, and makes this clear in several places, most notably in Chapter VIII Concerning Those Who Have Obtained a Principality by Wickedness, with his condemnation of Agathocles.

And more from Peter Bondanella and Musa:
Machiavelli is subtler than some moralists have appreciated. He never imagined that any sort of political action could be justified, and he clearly pronounces his awareness of conventional moral exigencies. He condemns politicians whose only aim is power, who kill their fellow citizens, betray their friends, and who are without faith, mercy, or religion: 'By these means,' he says, 'one can acquire power but not glory.' Power does not confer glory, nor is might synonymous with right. The merely powerful are set apart from praiseworthy princes precisely because of the ends towards which they strive.

The only goal Machiavelli ever offers in all his works, The Prince included, that may excuse acts judged violent or immoral by traditional Christian standards is that of establishing a self-sufficient and stable body politic. The principality should be led by a prince who defends himself with an army of free citizens and who derives his power from the love of his subjects. Given a serious emergency ( Italy's invasion by foreigners) and a unique historical opportunity to respond to this crisis by creating an Italian state through the Medici family, Machiavelli, the republican secretary, prefers external independence and internal stability to a weak republic endangered by foreign troops. As he remarks in The Art of War, ideal institutions are useless unless they are adequately protected, for they undergo 'the same sort of disorder as the rooms of a splendid and regal
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=97573377


3:A prince's most important study should warfare.

It should be the only study, according to Chapter XIV. ;)

Comments?

People often overlook the important aspects of Machiavelli's works. Il Principe is a short, relatively easy, and rather exciting book. But the Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio is just as important. Also overlooked is Machiavelli's importance as the one of the first "moderns" in political philosophy.

What is it with all the Machiavelli threads lately?

Has somebody just become Machiavellenlightened and developed a cerebral "crush" on a long dead author?

This is a discussion of Machiavelli's works. I personally, think that three fundamental concepts apply.

1: "The ends, justify the means."

Agree.

2:A leader objective should be his people's welfare, morals should not obstruct that objective

Agree for the most part.

3:A prince's most important study should warfare.

Not sure.

Why did Ghandi get assassinated then? He was simply killed because of political expedience, is that the reward of love?
No, and it's not the reward of power, either. It is the reward of fame. As for power, love, fear, etc, every "Prince" gets overthrown eventually, somehow -- by enemies, by fate, by himself, or by time. Macchiavelli teaches us quite clearly that power is a zero-sum game. That's one of the weaknesses of the "ends justify the means" concept for Princes: The end is always failure -- in the end. The means are all that really matter, as far as the Prince is concerned.

Anyway, well, one must fear the Prince in terms of not defying them. I mean, what you describe as fear was what I thought he described as hatred. If your people hate you then they will betray you. What I thought was that you had to be harsh enough to show that you mean business and get them to fear your wrath but at the same time earn respect through kindness, virtue and great works. At the very least that is what I remember from the Prince, he stated quite clearly in my book "it is much safer to be feared than loved" and then he went about to say that even though you might want to be fear that a prince should avoid being hated. This is all in chapter 17 of The Prince by Machiavelli and he makes it very clear that a Prince should try to be feared above all else, then loved if at all possible and especially not hated though.
I see your point. I guess I was being loose with Mr. M's terminology. From my reading of The Discourses, there seemed to be a couple different kinds of "fear" of a Prince.

There's the kind of relatively mild fear that is really belief in the power of the Prince to enforce the law with enough oomph to keep order. Non-criminals do not fear such power but admire it and look on it as something that is in their service. Then there is the kind of fear that is a belief in the Prince's power to command the armed forces sufficiently to stop or (better yet) prevent enemy attacks. This is also not really a fear for the people under the Prince's leadership. It's not so much that the people fear such a Prince, but that the Prince is fearsome, and that is a good thing. So that kind of "fear" isn't really fear -- it's respect.

Then there's the kind of fear of that same power that has the effect of deterring uprisings. That is when the respect turns to fear, because the people who are feeling it are already not respecting the Prince -- they are plotting to rise up against him. So the only thing that keeps them in line is fear. Macchiavelli recommended this kind of fearsomeness to Princes for their own self-preservation, but this was in a time when uprisings, coups, and assassinations were so common, a Prince did need to cop the same fear-instilling attitude as, say, a modern Mafia don (which Princes in those days pretty much were). It's also ironic advice, because the Duke of Florence was pretty fearsome and the Pope who put him in place was the capo di tutti capi, but that didn't stop Macchiavelli from getting involved with a plot to overthrow the Duke, which is what he was in prison for.

In any event, that second kind of fear is a dangerous game for Princes to play, because you never really know who you're playing against, and it is extremely easy for that fear to morph into the fear created by tyranny, which is the fear that causes hatred among the people, and that is the death of any Prince.

So, the ideal formula is to be feared by one's enemies, but loved, trusted, admired and considered a kick-ass bastard-dude by one's people - the kind of leader, they would be proud to stand up with and fight for, not against.

No, and it's not the reward of power, either. It is the reward of fame. As for power, love, fear, etc, every "Prince" gets overthrown eventually, somehow -- by enemies, by fate, by himself, or by time. Macchiavelli teaches us quite clearly that power is a zero-sum game. That's one of the weaknesses of the "ends justify the means" concept for Princes: The end is always failure -- in the end. The means are all that really matter, as far as the Prince is concerned.

I see your point. I guess I was being loose with Mr. M's terminology. From my reading of The Discourses, there seemed to be a couple different kinds of "fear" of a Prince.

There's the kind of relatively mild fear that is really belief in the power of the Prince to enforce the law with enough oomph to keep order. Non-criminals do not fear such power but admire it and look on it as something that is in their service. Then there is the kind of fear that is a belief in the Prince's power to command the armed forces sufficiently to stop or (better yet) prevent enemy attacks. This is also not really a fear for the people under the Prince's leadership. It's not so much that the people fear such a Prince, but that the Prince is fearsome, and that is a good thing. So that kind of "fear" isn't really fear -- it's respect.

Then there's the kind of fear of that same power that has the effect of deterring uprisings. That is when the respect turns to fear, because the people who are feeling it are already not respecting the Prince -- they are plotting to rise up against him. So the only thing that keeps them in line is fear. Macchiavelli recommended this kind of fearsomeness to Princes for their own self-preservation, but this was in a time when uprisings, coups, and assassinations were so common, a Prince did need to cop the same fear-instilling attitude as, say, a modern Mafia don (which Princes in those days pretty much were). It's also ironic advice, because the Duke of Florence was pretty fearsome and the Pope who put him in place was the capo di tutti capi, but that didn't stop Macchiavelli from getting involved with a plot to overthrow the Duke, which is what he was in prison for.

In any event, that second kind of fear is a dangerous game for Princes to play, because you never really know who you're playing against, and it is extremely easy for that fear to morph into the fear created by tyranny, which is the fear that causes hatred among the people, and that is the death of any Prince.
Well, to be honest, I do not have The Discourses, I have The Prince. The Prince I suppose doesn't go into all of that and only states fear, love, and hate with the first to be most important to gain and the last most important to avoid. I obviously cannot make any claims from the Discourses either confirming or denying what was said, all I can do is pull his work from the book of The Prince that I had to buy from half-price books.

1: "The ends, justify the means."
Agree.

Agree all you want, but I still blew that out of the water 2 posts above yours....

Machiavelli neither said nor intended "the ends justifyu the means", and the continued mistranslation of such is a barrier to properly understanding his ideas.

Well, to be honest, I do not have The Discourses, I have The Prince. The Prince I suppose doesn't go into all of that and only states fear, love, and hate with the first to be most important to gain and the last most important to avoid. I obviously cannot make any claims from the Discourses either confirming or denying what was said, all I can do is pull his work from the book of The Prince that I had to buy from half-price books.
You can get a used copy of The Discourses for as little as $2.95US +S&H through Amazon. I just looked it up. It's worth looking for at any used bookstore you happen to pass because it really is the main body of Machiavelli's thought. The Prince has a very narrow focus and is colored by satire. It's been my experience that every misunderstanding of Macchiavelli that I've heard or read has come from people who have read The Prince but not The Discourses. You've already got a very good grasp of the complexity of Machiavelli, just from The Prince. I think you'll enjoy The Discourses a lot.

You leave out the question of WHY he should study warfare. It is so that he can avoid being conquered by enemies, preferably by the most effective means possible -- avoiding war altogether.
"One should never avoid war, simply wait until one has the advantage" -Niccolo Machiavelli.

I have read Discourses On Titus Livus, and the full version is coming in the mail.

Agree all you want, but I still blew that out of the water 2 posts above yours....

Machiavelli neither said nor intended "the ends justifyu the means", and the continued mistranslation of such is a barrier to properly understanding his ideas.
It's a quote, Machiavelli never said, but describes "The Prince" well.

Really? Please, give me a summary on this man's philosophy.

I don't think you can credibly expect anyone adequately to summarise the works of a major philosopher like Nietzsche.

I picked "Excellent writing, though they don't apply to this day and age."

Why did Ghandi get assassinated then? He was simply killed because of political expedience, is that the reward of love?

Anyway, well, one must fear the Prince in terms of not defying them. I mean, what you describe as fear was what I thought he described as hatred. If your people hate you then they will betray you. What I thought was that you had to be harsh enough to show that you mean business and get them to fear your wrath but at the same time earn respect through kindness, virtue and great works. At the very least that is what I remember from the Prince, he stated quite clearly in my book "it is much safer to be feared than loved" and then he went about to say that even though you might want to be fear that a prince should avoid being hated. This is all in chapter 17 of The Prince by Machiavelli and he makes it very clear that a Prince should try to be feared above all else, then loved if at all possible and especially not hated though.
This is all from the translation. Someone here needs to read the Itallian version. "Whether it is better to be or feared". "A Prince should avoid being hated". What, ladies and gentlemen, is the opposite of hated? LOVED! Ergo...

I don't think you can credibly expect anyone adequately to summarise the works of a major philosopher like Nietzsche.
I see... Well, at least give me some highlights, that show the way he thought.

It's a quote, Machiavelli never said, but describes "The Prince" well.

No, it does not. As the comments quoted say, the phrase suggests the pursuit of immoral ends by immoral means, which machiavelli simply did not advocate. Machiavelli points out that in certain cases, the use of a narrow range of immoral means, as dictated only by the utrmost neccessity, in the pusuit of a very limited goal, is necessary. To suggest otherwise is to further the incorrect image of evil fosted on his works by a simple understanding and by intent from certain people who took offense at his observations.

"One should never avoid war, simply wait until one has the advantage" -Niccolo Machiavelli.

I have read Discourses On Titus Livus, and the full version is coming in the mail.
You should wait for the full version, aka the book itself. Waiting until one has the advantage, in the full philosophy, ends up equating to avoiding war, not by pacifism, but by two other ways: (1) by avoiding conflict with an enemy one never gains an advantage over; and (2) by gaining an advantage so strong that one's enemies seek to become allies.

What Machiavelli is really talking about in that quote is advice not to rush into unplanned attacks -- even defensive counter-attacks -- but to wait until one has a reasonable expectation of success. To do otherwise would be counter-productive.

(By the way, according to the Christian doctrine of just war (which I've just been reading about today), this caution is also part of morality because the leader must not just cavalierly throw away the lives of his soldiers.)

Because, as you yourself pointed out, the Prince's absolute obligation is to protect the interests of his people, he would be wrong, i.e. immoral, to be a warmonger who does nothing to try to avoid war.

Even a leader who comes across as very gentle and compassionate can achieve that. Even a pacifist leader, such as Ghandi, can do it.

His name's spelt Gandhi, actually.

Sorry, I just had to correct that. :p

This is a discussion of Machiavelli's works. I personally, think that three fundamental concepts apply.

1: "The ends, justify the means."

2:A leader objective should be his people's welfare, morals should not obstruct that objective

3:A prince's most important study should warfare.

Comments?
1. The end is power, and the ends justify the means.

2. Machiavelli (at least in The Prince) never emphasized the people's welfare. He was primarily interested in power for the powerful (a bit of a social Darwinist before his time)

3. His most important study should be gaining the fear and respect of the people. Machiavelli even scorned the use of fortresses. He said that if the people were truly devoted to you (whether by fear, love, or respect, or preferably some of each), you could not, in the long term, lose a war. It is impossible for the enemy to occupy your territory whilst the citizenry is wholly with you. Also, a devoted populace will provide a ready army, and one with good morale.

Nevertheless, he did say that a good prince should never stop thinking about the possibility of warfare and ways to defend his land.

You can get a used copy of The Discourses for as little as $2.95US +S&H through Amazon. I just looked it up. It's worth looking for at any used bookstore you happen to pass because it really is the main body of Machiavelli's thought. The Prince has a very narrow focus and is colored by satire. It's been my experience that every misunderstanding of Macchiavelli that I've heard or read has come from people who have read The Prince but not The Discourses. You've already got a very good grasp of the complexity of Machiavelli, just from The Prince. I think you'll enjoy The Discourses a lot.
I probably would enjoy The Discourses. I might check that out in the Fall when I get on campus. Machiavelli's thought is quite intriguing.

This is all from the translation. Someone here needs to read the Itallian version. "Whether it is better to be or feared". "A Prince should avoid being hated". What, ladies and gentlemen, is the opposite of hated? LOVED! Ergo...
Perhaps it is translation however, I do not think that the quote "The Prince, nevertheless, ought to make himself feared in such a mode that if he does not acquire love, he then avoids hatred..." could be the result of bad translation. After all, to so clearly convey a meaning so contrary to what you claim he has intended seems to be horrible mangling of the text rather than just translation error. After all, in that quote Machiavelli suggested that one could be not loved and not hated at the same time which of course is quite possible. All that is simply needed is no polarizing actions which cause great dissent or great joy or at the very least a relative balance between the two. Simply not being hated does not mean being loved. Of course, my poor fluency in Italian could never allow me to study the original work without putting in extra-effort to learn another language relatively extensively.

Perhaps it is translation however, I do not think that the quote "The Prince, nevertheless, ought to make himself feared in such a mode that if he does not acquire love, he then avoids hatred..." could be the result of bad translation. After all, to so clearly convey a meaning so contrary to what you claim he has intended seems to be horrible mangling of the text rather than just translation error. After all, in that quote Machiavelli suggested that one could be not loved and not hated at the same time which of course is quite possible. All that is simply needed is no polarizing actions which cause great dissent or great joy or at the very least a relative balance between the two. Simply not being hated does not mean being loved. Of course, my poor fluency in Italian could never allow me to study the original work without putting in extra-effort to learn another language relatively extensively.
Possibly. Love/Respect/Fear/Hate.

1. The end is power, and the ends justify the means.

No, and emphatically no.

I received The Discourses in the mail recently; and I just read book I. I hope I will never even listen to a person who critisizes Machiavelli again, if they have only read The Prince. If you read that without reading The Discourses you come away knowing less about Machiavelli. Anyone who has read The Discourses knows he was not a sociopath who advocated evil simply because good puts you at a disadvantage.
As for "the means justify the ends", I always thought i knew what he ment by that. Here's what he said in The Discourses: "It is a sound maxim that reprehensible actions may be by their effects, and that when the effect is good, as it was in the case of Romulus, [mythical, yet still sighted as an example] it always justifies the action. For it is the man who uses violence to spoil things, no not the man who uses it to mend them, that is blameworthy."
I also discover that he is a God-fearing individual, by this: "...there can be no surer indication of the decline of a country then to see divine worship neglected." I suppose you could call that using religion for psychological reasons, but he seems to be pretty religious to me, when he says: "no serious misfortune ever befalls a city or a province that has not been predicted by either by a divination or revelation or by prodigies or by other heavenly signs." Yet he isn't blindly loyal to the Roman church: "if one would form a conjecture as to the causes of it's [The Christian Commonwealth] decline can one do better then look at those peoples who live in the immediate neighbourhood of the Church of Rome, which is the head of our religion, and see how there is less religion among them then elsewhere." Anyone still wonder why Machiavelli's works were put on the "Index"?
He also said: "Those who set up a Tyranny are no less blameworthy then are the founders of a Rebulic or a Kingdom Praisworthy." He here draws a line from a Dictatorship (Kingdom) and a Tyranny. Also throughout the book, he directly praises Democracy.
Even the Dedication is totally differnt from what you'd expect: "...I know that I have made no mistake at any rate in this, that I have chosen to dedicate these my discourses to you [his friend] in preference to all others; both because in doing so, I seem to be showing some gratitude for benefits recieved, and also I seem in this to be departing from the usual practice of authors, which has always been to dedicate their works to some prince, and,blinded by ambition and avarice, to praise him for all his virtuous
Tim qualities when they ought to have blamed him for all manner of shameful deeds." time to re-think your idea of Machiavelli. Read [I]the Discourses.