Blog #18: "The Prince Blog One"

Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince was written in 1513, but its descriptions and directions are still prevalent in our world today. Many people believe that Machiavelli was evil. They believe that his motives were for personal gain, power, and authority. After reading through the first nine chapters of The Prince, I do not agree with this. I believe that, in his time (1469-1527), he was simply trying to improve society, as he saw it unfit. The arguments for the evil side of the debate state that his theories are more aimed towards tyranny than democracy, but during his time period, many kings and queens ruled in this way. He was simply following society’s rules, yet at the same time, trying to improve them. Also, the concept of a king or queen in this time was one of absolute power. In today’s terms, we regard them as selfish and greedy, but back then, that was what they believed they were meant to do.

Even though I believe that Machiavelli did not have evil intentions for writing The Prince, there sill are some “evil-like” points he makes in the book. One of which is contained in chapter five, where Machiavelli describes “how cities or provinces which before their acquisition have lived under their own laws are to be governed.” Machiavelli writes that “When a newly acquired State has been accustomed, as I have said, to live under its own laws and in freedom, there are three methods whereby it may be held. The first is to destroy it; the second, to go and reside there in person; the third, to suffer it to live on under its own laws, subjecting it to a tribute, and entrusting its government to a few of the inhabitants who will keep the rest your friends” (Machiavelli 11). Machiavelli says that a method of holding a newly acquired state is to destroy it. I find this to be kind of evil, because it forces all prior cultures and traditions of the people to be thrown away. Again, this picture Machiavelli paints is not of democracy, but rather a dictatorship type of government.

While Machiavelli made many good points throughout these first nine chapters of The Prince, I found that I most believe with a point made in chapter six, where Machiavelli describes “of new princedoms which a Prince acquires with his own arms and by merit.” He writes that “For since men for the most part follow in the footsteps and imitate the actions of others, and yet are unable to adhere exactly to those paths which others have taken, or attain to the virtues of those whom they would resemble, the wise man should always follow the roads that have been trodden by the great, and imitate those who have most excelled, so that if he cannot reach their perfection, he may at least acquire something of its savour” (Machiavelli 12). I find this statement quite insightful. People we look up to should be accomplished in their respected areas, and by choosing the “best of the best,” insures that what you learn, is of the highest quality. What is the point of learning from someone who is unknowledgeable in the subject area you wish to learn? If you have the opportunity to learn from the best, it is to your advantage to do so.

Machiavelli’s beliefs are in practice today. The main purpose in the book is to show how Princes either gain or maintain control in a variety of situations. Today is no different, in regards to politics. Presidential campaigns, for example, pin one person against another in an effort to win the highest seat in our country. Through many methods, some more socially acceptable than others, politicians bash each other in hopes of convincing the people to elect themselves. Once elected, they must steer around many “sticky” situations to maintain their position. While the concepts of princedoms and democracies are certainly different, they do relate in the sense of politicians using many different ways to gain or maintain power.

Blog #7: "Law and Justice"

To begin with, the difference between law and justice is simple. Law is what the government requires us to do, and justice is what our personal set of morals tell us to do. However, the simplicity ends at that. One passage that I took to a higher meaning from the selected reading, Law and Justice, reads “Law is only a means. Government is only a means. ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ - these are the ends. And ‘whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.’” This statement definitely favors the justice side more so, stating that when the people don’t agree with the laws the government has enacted, then it is the people’s right to change to a government that better suits their needs. Above all else, it says that the basic human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness stand, and that the law and related government are only a way to ensure that those rights are met.

I believe that both law and justice are necessary. First justice is required, and then the law is a means to make sure the justice is achieved. They are dependent on each other for success. However, when the law says one thing, but your moral code says another, the question comes up “What should I do?” Many people struggle with this question. Are you loyal to your country, or to yourself? While most of us are both, sometimes that answer can only be one or the other, and it is up to the individual to decide. However, when choosing morals over the law, one must be prepared to face the consequences that go hand in hand with breaking the law.

I thought it was interesting how the article discussed the different ways the law is handled according to the accused. The passage reads “…a CIA official commits perjury and gets off with a fine (Alger Hiss spent four years in jail for perjury), a president is pardoned in advance of prosecution for acts against the law, … and others are found guilty of violating the law in the Iran-Contra affair, but none go to prison.” It also mentions the impact people with power because of their money have on the political process. While I was aware of most of this already, it just seemed different in print. The law is supposed to be uniform for everyone to ensure fairness for everyone. However, when powerful and wealthy individuals get involved, it seems as if they can buy their way out of their problems. This is not right, and my morals say something must be done about it. With the upcoming presidential election approaching closer and closer every day, we will just have to wait to see if Barack Obama or John McCain stay true to their words in dealing with the many problems they would face if elected president on November 4th.

Over time, law and justice haven’t really changed in a sense of sometimes the law says one thing, but your morals say another. However the individual incidents have changed, as history changes. As wars occur, peoples’ opinions about them change, and drafts are protested. Yet during peace times, this doesn’t occur, because it is irreverent.

In closing, law and justice are different, and when the time comes to choose between the two, only you can decide for yourself.

Blog #5: "Should Promoting Democracy Abroad Be a Top U.S. Priority? "

After reading the Taking Sides article about promoting democracy around the world, I felt strongly about the side that favored it. In the introduction, the fact was mentioned that “democracies tend not to fight with one another and instead are generally highly integrated economically and politically with one another.” This is the cornerstone of my opinion, because I believe that the world needs less fighting and more getting along. I think that if the governments of the world could agree to not disagree to the point of fighting in a war, then we’d all be in a better global situation. In this way, democracies seem to offer the best solution to the problem.

Along with the fact that democracies don’t fight as much with one another, comes the fact that “when we consider indicators such as life expectancy, illiteracy, and access to clean drinking water…democratizers enjoy better living conditions than autocracies.” This means that the quality of life for democratic citizens is considerably better than non-democratic citizens. Everyone, regardless of nationality, should be entitled to these things because they are human-beings. These natural rights are given in democracies, and if the rest of the world realized the good they can do, maybe they would change for the better. “What is government but a mechanism by which a society orders its priorities? The more representative, transparent, and accountable this process, the more balanced the outcomes will be compared to a system that is narrowly based and lacking incentives for responsiveness to citizen interests.” A government should act in the best interest of its citizens, and in order to fully understand those interests, a government needs to listen to its people. A democracy is the only way that this will happen.

I believe that the world needs more democracies. Democracies give the power to the people, as it should be. A government is a representation of the people under it, and what better way to represent them, than to give them a say in what happens? Being that the United States is a leader in the world, and a prime example of the prosperity that can result from democratic rule, I believe we are more than qualified to show others this effect. In this case, I say yes, promoting democracy abroad should be a top U.S. priority.

Along with my opinion of the argument as it is, I also believe that the author of the pro-democracy gave his opinion is a stronger fashion, as well as addressing the opposition better. Joseph Siegle, the author, gives more reference to the better world that can be had, if the US helps promote democracy, as well as the effects if this is not done. He gives a more convincing argument, while the author of the “no” side, Tamara Cofman Wittes, is more confusing. While reading the opposition, it seemed as if she was confused as well. She says that “America must make [Iraq’s] success our first priority…It might provide a powerful demonstration effect to the neighborhood.” To me, this seems as if she favors spreading democracy around the world, which agrees with Siegle. That being said, I favor the argument that supports promoting democracy abroad.