Chapter II
In the second chapter of Machiavelli's book, The Prince, we are confronted with more ideas and proposals put forth by Niccolo Machiavelli, in his book dedicated to Lorenzo de’ Medici who would become duke of Urbino in 1516.
or 
The first general idea put forth by Machiavelli is that antique monarchies are more easy to maintain then new monarchies.
He says, "the difficulty of maintaining hereditary states accustomed to a reigning family is far less than in new monarchies." - Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter II
He asserts that, since the monarchy is long-standing, the people would have become accustomed to that ruling family, and would be easier to govern.
I would agree that, yes, as a general rule it is easier to maintain a longstanding monarchy than an infant one. A longstanding monarchy already has traditions, loyalty, and infrastructure in place and very ready to maintain. On the contrary, new monarchies have an entire system to set up, officers to appoint, laws to pass, and (generally) loyalty to gain.
However, there is an exception to this general rule. During the Age of Revolutions, many nations rebelled against longstanding monarchies. In fact, antique monarchies were more likely to be overthrown. (Examples, the American, French, and later the Russian Revolution).
This was, perhaps, not entirely due to the ruling monarchies' antiquity, but more due to their disconnect with the people and totalitarian oversight of them. Regardless, during the Age of Revolutions, antique monarchies were more likely to be overthrown. Newer monarchies, however, were more likely to not be opposed. In order for them to be constructed in the first place, it is reasonable to assert that their citizens must have given some consent to begin ruling them. Thus, at least during the Age of Revolutions, the general rule seemed to have been flipped.
Machiavelli would reiterate this idea a few sentences later, saying, "[the Prince who rules the longstanding, antique kingdom will] always be able to maintain his position, unless some very exceptional and excessive force deprives him of it." This is true, and more accurately addresses what we see throughout history. It also indirectly addresses the possibility of a revolution ["unless some very exceptional and excessive force deprives him of it"].
So, from these two statements, we can form a single statement that I believe more accurately reflects history.
"the difficulty of maintaining hereditary states accustomed to a reigning family is far less than in new monarchies, and the prince who rules these longstanding empires will generally be able to keep his power, unless some very exceptional and excessive force deprives him of it."
This, I believe, is accurate.
Now, the final idea Machiavelli proposes is this.
"if no extraordinary vices make him [the Prince] hated, it is only reasonable for his subjects to be naturally attached to him."
What he is saying is that if the prince commits no extraordinary wrongdoings, his subjects will be naturally more attached to him.
I think this is a reasonable proposal, and is unfortunately accurate. If a people see their rulers acting in an generally upstanding, or even neutral manner, they will become more attached to them. This is even true on the political scene today.
But is it right? Should a ruler's subjects be attached to him?
Becoming attached to a person can have fatal consequences. For instance, if the ruler became malevolent, the people would have their faith in any leadership shattered. Or, if the ruler performed evil behind their backs, this could also have consequences. The people, being so attached to their ruler, would be unable or unwilling to hear about his hidden vices.
Thus, we should never be attached to mere mortals, the men we choose to delegate authority to.
We should instead put our faith in our ideas and deepest convictions, because while men can die, ideas will live on as long as there are minds to hold and support them.
Regardless of this fact, Machiavelli was right in pointing out that if a ruler does no major wrong, the people will become more attached to him.
Well, this concludes our analysis of chapter II. Chapter III will be posted soon. If you enjoyed this, upvote it! If you have a critique or suggestion, let me know in the comments. I'm active fairly often and will try to answer you as soon as I can.
Cheers friends, and remember, keep Steeming!
Hello @maxvespia9,
Congratulations! Your post has been chosen by the communities of SteemTrail as one of our top picks today.
Also, as a selection for being a top pick today, you have been awarded a TRAIL token for your participation on our innovative platform...STEEM.
Please visit SteemTrail to get instructions on how to claim your TRAIL token today.
If you wish to not receive comments from SteemTrail, please reply with "Stop" to opt out.
Happy TRAIL!
Very cool - thank you.
This post has been ranked within the top 25 most undervalued posts in the second half of Mar 06. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $19.82 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Mar 06 - Part II. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
@maxvespia9 Hey Max, this article got me thinking about something.
have you read or heard of Hoppe's Democracy: The God that Failed? In it he talks about how a monarchy would be preferable to a democracy because democracy represents a publicly owned government, while a monarchy is privately owned government and therefore better at self preservation. He concludes that there should be no government, but what do you think about the public vs. private issue?
I haven't! I should really read that book, it sounds interesting.
Should we have a publicly owned government or a private one? I haven't thought about that. Im not sure.
What do you think?
My main goal is a very small government, instituted by their citizens for the simple sake of protecting the rights of their citizens. The governmental form I would most prefer is a republic, which differs from a democracy in certain ways.
Personally, I am an market anarchist, but I see eye to eye with classical liberals because I used to be one. Where I differ with Locke is his support of social contract theory. The problem with government is that it naturally grows. Tackling that problem is what led me to Murray Rothbard.
Very true, and thats why Im a classical liberal. We have to be vigilant, and always monitor its growth. At a certain point, the consequences of government outweigh the benefits.
Huh - I've never heard of him. I'll check him out, I'd be interested in what he had to say.
Just a warning! You might like it! I'd start with "For a New Liberty" you can get it for free from the mises institute:
https://mises.org/library/new-liberty-libertarian-manifesto
Thanks - I'll check it out tomorrow morning. Its getting late and I have to get up early, so Ill talk tomorrow.
:D Cheers