#1
I am working on it right now, but I have other stuff too.

So I need to type 2 essays on Locke's Second Treatise to Machiavelli's The Prince (for those who have taken some political classes, you know what books I'm talking about) to compare and contrast their views on human nature and politics and how they relate to each other, and their flaws. I'm currently working on comparing and contrasting their views on how a government should function in a society.

So for you political science minors or majors out there, a little bit of clue here and there should let me finish the essays faster and let study for my western civil. test tomorrow.
#2
It'd be much easier if you gave more specific questions. I just finished the Prince(as well as Discourses on Live) and am currently reading Locke, so I could probably help you out some.
Stevie Y of the GO WINGS club. PM me with a title to join.


The following statement is false. The preceding statement is true.

Member #20 of the "Use Your Fucking Dictionary Club." PM Dæmönika to join.
#3
The Prince was a pretty badass piece of literature. I should admit though, that I disagree with most of what he says.
"...And I'm pretty sure what you did to my children's snowman is illegal, if not, sodomy."
-Stephen Colbert: 'The Colbert Report'
#4
Quote by BlueOyster23
The Prince was a pretty badass piece of literature. I should admit though, that I disagree with most of what he says.


That book is much deeper than just a book on how to be a ruthless leader. Read his discourses on Livy, and you'll see that he doesn't really think that way about government. He was simply hoping that if the Medici's followed his advice, they would at least be able to either unite Italy under their rule, or create an uprising in which someone(perhaps Nic himself) would take over and unite Italy. He's very republican and very impressed with the Roman system of government.
Stevie Y of the GO WINGS club. PM me with a title to join.


The following statement is false. The preceding statement is true.

Member #20 of the "Use Your Fucking Dictionary Club." PM Dæmönika to join.
#5
Quote by kshelt76
That book is much deeper than just a book on how to be a ruthless leader. Read his discourses on Livy, and you'll see that he doesn't really think that way about government. He was simply hoping that if the Medici's followed his advice, they would at least be able to either unite Italy under their rule, or create an uprising in which someone(perhaps Nic himself) would take over and unite Italy. He's very republican and very impressed with the Roman system of government.



This guys got it, I didn't read either piece in it's entirety but I did read sections for my advanced civics class. Are they worth reading?
Quote by brandonian
you nose started bleeding, so the first thing you do is post it on UG? i don't understand the reasoning behind that one my friend



Quote by unplugtheradio
screw grammar i practice economic typing.
#6
So, Machiavelli is basically about how a prince should rule, that is while maintaning the people's favor while being strict. I believe there is a quote that references to how it is better to be feared than loved. It's sorta like realpolitk, but the decisions are made with the ruler in mind, not the country.

Locke is about how human's are insinctively good natured, and have the right to life, liberty, and property.

I just touched the surface of a very deep iceberg, you probably already knew all of this. Your best bet would be to read the books, because i can hardly remember them.
#7
Yes, as a whole, The Prince is an amazing book. It's even better when taken in context with the Discourses(he wrote the Prince about halfway through writing the Discourses). As a political book, the Discourses are brilliant, but as a historian, I must say, he gives Livy way too much credit for being an accurate historian. It's doubtful that many of the praises Livy heaps upon the early Roman rulers are accurate, therefore, casting a small shadow of doubt over Machi's writings. However, Machi's writings, are very well intelligent in light of the material he is studying.
Stevie Y of the GO WINGS club. PM me with a title to join.


The following statement is false. The preceding statement is true.

Member #20 of the "Use Your Fucking Dictionary Club." PM Dæmönika to join.
#8
Quote by Prometheus02
So, Machiavelli is basically about how a prince should rule, that is while maintaning the people's favor while being strict. I believe there is a quote that references to how it is better to be feared than loved. It's sorta like realpolitk, but the decisions are made with the ruler in mind, not the country.

Locke is about how human's are insinctively good natured, and have the right to life, liberty, and property.

I just touched the surface of a very deep iceberg, you probably already knew all of this. Your best bet would be to read the books, because i can hardly remember them.


Machiavelli is all about how a prince should rule, thats right. And he realizes that although it's good to be liked, it's better to be feared than loved, because people who are in fear don't cause trouble. Furthermore, he pretty much states that sometimes, a Prince is going to have to do some bad things if he wants to build a great prinicipality, and that he should be ready and willing to do those bad things when they're called for. However, he shouldn't just do bad things whenever he feels like. Instead, if he must resort to evil, he should do so quickly, and then back off.

Locke believes that all people, in a state of nature respect each other's right to life, liberty and property and therefore, the government does not have the right to impose any restrictions on those three things. However, liberty, in Locke's view is much different than our view of liberty.

Edit: As I said earlier TS, give some specific questions, and I'll be able to help you out more.
Stevie Y of the GO WINGS club. PM me with a title to join.


The following statement is false. The preceding statement is true.

Member #20 of the "Use Your Fucking Dictionary Club." PM Dæmönika to join.
#9
Here are the actual questions:

1. Compare and contrast Machiavelli and Locke on human nature and politics. How are Machiavelli's and Locke's ideas of human nature and politics similar and different? How is each theorist's conception of human nature connected to his theory of politics? When is government legitimate in each of these theories? What are the strengths and weaknesses of each theory of politics?

2. Compare and contrast Machiavelli and Locke on power. What are the similarities and differences between Machiavelli's and Locke's ideas about how/when a government (and/or leader) should exercise power? When is the use of power justified? What are the strengths and weakness of each theory of power?

Question 2 I shouldn't have too much trouble with, but a few guidance (sp?) here and there will also help.

Thanks for the responses guys.
#10
Alright,

Well Machiavelli, as far as I can tell, doesn't really think people are all that reliable. He also kind of believes that people can be easily manipulated and led. They are also quite quick to fall into corruption. Because of this, they must have a strong leader to pull them out of the corruption, as well as keep them in line. He believes that if the leader can't demonstrate his power and authority, then the people will see him as weak and refuse to follow him. However, if he oversteps his power and abuses it, the people will hate him, and they will rebel against him.

Examples of his view on people: His argument of whether it is better to be feared than loved(fear keeps people in line, their love for you can change if you don't treat them extremely well), his argument on mercaneries vs. citizen soldiers(mercs work for money, and won't fight. Cit-soldiers, because of the stake of their families and homes will at least fight), he says somewhere that people are finicky and easily persuaded, he believes that if a ruler can make it appear that he has certain qualities the people will fear him, etc. Overall, he doesn't think that people are very reliable. It is up to the Prince to do things himself.


Locke on the other hand believes that people are inherently good and respectful of each other's "natural rights". However, there are certain inconveniences, which necessitate the creation of a government. However, that government is not allowed to impinge on those natural rights.
Stevie Y of the GO WINGS club. PM me with a title to join.


The following statement is false. The preceding statement is true.

Member #20 of the "Use Your Fucking Dictionary Club." PM Dæmönika to join.
Last edited by kshelt76 at Feb 11, 2008,
#11
Cool, thanks.

Do you have like any specific examples of where they said each things you just said in the books? My teacher is anal like that; we need quotes. Or maybe give me the chapters if you can remember where the examples are. I'll look up the quotes myself.
#12
Um...look up Machiavelli's arguments on armies(mercs vs. cit-soldiers) and his argument on whether its better to be loved than hated( i have no idea which chapters). there's also a direct quote where he says that men are not to be trusted etc....but, right now, I can;t remember where it is.

Locke's view on human nature should be right in the beginning of the second treatise
Stevie Y of the GO WINGS club. PM me with a title to join.


The following statement is false. The preceding statement is true.

Member #20 of the "Use Your Fucking Dictionary Club." PM Dæmönika to join.