History of modern political thought - Essay Example

Those who rely simply on the lion do not understand what they are about.” (Machiavelli, 1515) The lion is the proverbial “king of the beasts” who rules the jungle. Yet, it is not enough for Machiavelli’s ideal Prince to be simply the most strong of all the animals, and most respected in the jungle. In this regard the animal nature must also embrace the wiliness of the fox in its ability to escape tracks, because as Machiavelli wrote “the wolves” will be waiting for the Prince to attack and strip him of life and power.

Ultimately, Machiavelli wrote: “If men were entirely good this precept would not hold, but because they are bad, and will not keep faith with you, you too are not bound to observe it with them.” (Machiavelli, 1515) In ‘Chapter XIX” Machiavelli extends the analogy of the lion and fox by referencing historical Roman examples of “the opposite characters of Commodus, Severus, Antoninus Caracalla, and Maximinus,” who he describes as being leaders who “did not hesitate to commit every kind of iniquity against the people”.

(Machiavelli, 1515) Machiavelli discusses how the “fox nature” relates to the ability to make treaties but also abandon them when they no longer serve the interests of the Prince for power. Machiavelli then discusses how it is important for the Prince to appear publicly to have good, humanitarian, and valorous qualities in the public eye, but be ruthless behind the public veil in consolidate power through eliminating enemies. “Therefore it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them.

” (Machiavelli, 1515) Question 2: In view of Hobbe's bleak and pessimistic view of human nature, how is the transition from the state of nature to civil society possible? in other words, are the conclusion of Hobbe's theory of absolute government logically sound but politically inapplicable? Hobbe’s view of the corrupted nature of human society did not technically for him prohibit the centralization of power in the State. In some ways, Hobbe’s own arguments are similar to the doctrine of ‘Pluralism’ advocated in America by James Madison and others.

Despite there being multiple centers or organizations of power, wealth, authority, control, force, tradition, status, prestige, etc. in a society, these could all be centralized in the State through its apparatus, institutions, and operations. As Stuart Hopkins writes in“Hobbes and Absolute Sovereignty” (2011), Hobbes “.was primarily concerned with the problems of union and unity within the commonwealth, with the construction of such a unity, and the possibility of common action that is a product of that unity.

The absence of unanimity in decision making, and unresolvable conflicts of interest, frustrate and militate against a natural unity and, therefore, in the event of open conflict, jeopardise the lives and the welfare of the subjects. A civil society, or commonwealth, must have a clearly defined and