A Little Discussion of Machiavelli With Your Morning Coffee?
This is a discussion of Machiavelli’s view of an armed citizenry in The Art of War, as authored by Cary Nederman, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Machiavelli holds that one of the consequences of such vivere sicuro is the disarmament of the people. He comments that regardless of “how great his kingdom is”, the king of France “lives as a tributary” to foreign mercenaries.
This all comes from having disarmed his people and having preferred … to enjoy the immediate profit of being able to plunder the people and of avoiding an imaginary rather than a real danger, instead of doing things that would assure them and make their states perpetually happy. This disorder, if it produces some quiet times, is in time the cause of straitened circumstances, damage and irreparable ruin (Discourses CW 410).
A state that makes security a priority cannot afford to arm its populace, for fear that the masses will employ their weapons against the nobility (or perhaps the crown). Yet at the same time, such a regime is weakened irredeemably, since it must depend upon foreigners to fight on its behalf. In this sense, any government that takes vivere sicuro as its goal generates a passive and impotent populace as an inescapable result. By definition, such a society can never be free in Machiavelli’s sense of vivere libero, and hence is only minimally, rather than completely, political or civil.
Confirmation of this interpretation of the limits of monarchy for Machiavelli may be found in his further discussion of the disarmament of the people, and its effects, in The Art of War. Addressing the question of whether a citizen army is to be preferred to a mercenary one, he insists that the liberty of a state is contingent upon the military preparedness of its subjects. Acknowledging that “the king [of France] has disarmed his people in order to be able to command them more easily”, Machiavelli still concludes “that such a policy is … a defect in that kingdom, for failure to attend to this matter is the one thing that makes her weak” (Art CW 584, 586–587). In his view, whatever benefits may accrue to a state by denying a military role to the people are of less importance than the absence of liberty that necessarily accompanies such disarmament. The problem is not merely that the ruler of a disarmed nation is in thrall to the military prowess of foreigners.
More crucially, Machiavelli believes, a weapons-bearing citizen militia remains the ultimate assurance that neither the government nor some usurper will tyrannize the populace: “So Rome was free four hundred years and was armed; Sparta, eight hundred; many other cities have been unarmed and free less than forty years” (Art CW 585).
Excerpted from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/
Citaton: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/machiavelli/
As I indicated in my article on Prohibition (18th Amendment), it didn’t work. People went right on consuming alcohol and the 18th was repealed.
The author also examines Machiavelli’s other works, including The Prince in which Machiavelli essentially says “The Prince must do whatever is necessary to secure power and maintain order….” He set aside idealism, which is the wellspring of the liberal side of the fence, and addressed Italy’s then-current and tumultuous political environment in a realistic manner. Centuries later, it is still discussed at length by people who do not understand the pragmatic view that he took of governing a state when he composed his “Letter to the Prince”.
We have to remember that in the US Constitution it says explicitly: The Tenth Amendment declares, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” In other words, states have all powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution.
Category: "The Floggings Will Continue Until Morale Improves", Guns
The Nanny State pushes for “gun” control when we all know that for years their goal was “people” control. Another example of the fore sight of the Founders. They knew that at some point in time, We The People, might have to defend themselves from an autocratic, oppressive Government…. And here we are.
Good Post Mi’Lady. I like history.
Yep. For the Left, the operative term in the phrase “gun control” isn’t “gun” – it’s “control”. “Gun” is just today’s excuse for why control is necessary.
One very important point, too: those foreign mercenaries must be paid. Promptly.
A sterling example comes from the King in France, who declined to pay his imported Hessians. Said Hessians crossed over and fought for the revolutionaries. (Ironic bit of history: the quintessential Marseillaise, perhaps the most stirring national ever written, was dedicated to the military governor of Marseilles… who was the Graf von Luckner. His grandson was a German hero in WWI, one of the most successful raider ship captains.)
Ah! The Hessians! Good point!
Why does the name Machiavelli sound like a designer clothing line.
Well, he WAS a snappy dresser, y’know. Italians…
Ex-PH2;
Haven’t heard Snappy dresser in a long time. I had 3 seersucker suits, classic blue white, tan white and brown white. When I went to the 2007 Iwo Jima class ship reunion, I wore my classic blue/white suit and one of the wives called me a snappy dresser. Had the red tie with a windsor knot. Way before that, I wore one of the suits at one of my friends wedding and one of the Point Lookout FD’s Ex Chief’s said to another one of my friend Quote: We haven’t sold one of those suits in 20 years when I worked for JC Penny’s. Couple of months ago, the 3 suits went into the circular file. Seems liked they all shrunk from the Florida heat.
How did I miss this post, much more so the comment. Was the Point Lookout mentioned the one in the PDRofMD?
That’s a shame when you have to do that. Vintage clothing is a “thing” now, since Downton Abbey became popular. And I haven’t had my RenFaire getup on for a while, but next year, I aim to get up there at least once, and out it will come.
I still have some of my hip mod patterns from the 1960s. They really look quite trendy now.
I like the Edwardian look, too. Those tailors knew how to make a guy look both “smart” and “manly” at the same time.
Authorities bent upon controlling their own people can’t fight an invader.
The English had most men training with the bow. (How times change…)
“The Prince” had to to with the well-being of the state, not the Prince. (How interpretations change…
That is correct. The subject of the letter was addressed to Lorenzo de’ Medici, who became the Duke of Urbino, and was one of Machiavelli’s efforts to get employment with Medici.
Folks who have never even read the cover of that book toss “Machiavellian” around as if that word somehow makes them scholarly.
Its a real hoot when they invert their own intended meaning.
Exactly, and they completely miss the point of it, which was NOT about ruthlessness at all. It’s probably the most pragmatic piece of advice anyone ever came up with.
There’s a whole bunch of stuff that I need to add to my library, for a little light reading with a bowl of popcorn and a cold beverage when it’s snowing outside. Glad my TV went kaputz some time back. Never have replaced it.
“Urbino”
White person living in Baltimore.
Liberal pols: “If you need a 30 round magazine then you suck st Hunting!”
Me and many others: “If YOU need a disarmed populace then YOU SUCK at governing!”
That just -so- works…
Absolutely! Well said, API.