From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Sat Jan 25 2003 - 05:05:18 MST
Sorry for interrupting the flaming, but I feel a need to defend the
honor of Niccolo Machiavelli.
On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 12:15:25PM +0100, Kai Becker wrote:
>
> Macchiavelli was possible in his times, and even then, the methods he
> described caused a lot of suffering. BTW, he was totally undemocratic and
> would have given nothing for human rights. He therefore cannot be a role
> model for modern politics in an interdependend world. Instead, we have
> to make sure that his followers have no chance to come to power.
Hmm, you have not read much of him, have you? While his name have become
synonymous with ruthless realpolitik, he was actually an idealist
seeking to create a free, united and (for its time) democratic Italy.
_The Prince_ was an attempt to write a HOWTO-manual for rulers, showing
what methods had worked and not worked in the past and explanations of
why. For its time it was an amazing document, since it attempted to
distinguish political science as the study of what people do or can do
from the study of what they *ought* to do - all previous books in the
genre were essentially sermons about being a nice just ruler. It is very
much a renaissance document, laying some of the dirty groundwork for the
enlightenment and the start of political science.
In his _Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius_ (1513-21),
often called _The Republic_ he looked at republics and what made *them*
work. In "Discourses" he emphasized that for a republic to survive, it
needed to foster a spirit of patriotism and civic virtue among its
citizens. Machiavelli argued that a republic would be strengthened by
the conflicts generated through open political participation and debate.
See the direct influence on liberal and dynamist thinking?
Machiavelli didn't talk about human rights, because they were not part
of the discourse yet (while the Sophists had discussed natural rights
and Christianity had a rights idea based on being in God's image neither
really applied to things like freedom). Blaming him for ruthless
politicians is a misattribution - they existed long before and
independently of his thinking. Many of his political views doesn't
resonate well these days (I doubt he ever thought about women playing a
role in the republic), but we shouldn't get trapped in historicism. He
was an important step forward, and I actually prefer the politician who
has read his books (*all of them*) to somebody who proudly declares
himself to be anti-Machiavellian.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:03 MST