Machiavelli’s rationalization is deeply flawed. He argues that rulers should do all to maintain his power and what is most desirable is for them to indulge in vice. Further, He assumes that a ruler who adheres to the ‘cult of personality’ will escape all consequences of his actions. His is not a fool proof plan. Vice is not the key to power and authority and clandestine motives do not remain so indefinitely.
For one, the argument is that there is a difference between the real and the ideal. The Machiavellian ruler is aware of this discrepancy and does his/her best to make the best of both ends. They must know how to be good but also how not to be good. But what of the consequences of not being genuinely good? If this were really the case and such rulers lived in the world of real, then the truth of apparent consequences should also be realized by them. All actions have consequences. And there is a price to pay even for bad things done with the intention of good. Even if the people can not rebel, that does not necessarily mean that there is nothing to fear. Countless beloved leaders have even been assassinated throughout history such as Abraham Lincoln, King Faisal, and Benazir Bhutto to name a few. This sort of approach to responsibility fosters a false sense of contentment. Despotic rulers are eventually disposed of, either by their own people or foreign governments. Some resort to suicide, as did Hitler, but for sure the outcome is not good.