Machiavelli and Hobbes: Peace of Order or Chaos of Liberty - Essay Example

Machiavelli and Hobbes: Peace of Order or Chaos of Liberty? and Number In the U.K. the rights of the individual are protected. This is not true in every society depending upon social and political orientation. In free societies, however, there is a recognised balance between freedom and control-- between what people are technically allowed to do versus laws that often say otherwise. In the end any analysis of the issue concerning individual rights (liberty) versus community rights (order) must take into account the attitudes of the community itself. Analysing the issue from a philosophical perspective provides an interesting array of thoughts on the subject. In doing so, clear patterns emerge which are telling in terms of the philosophers themselves, their views on individual rights and their relationship to the individual’s collective responsibility to the maintenance of societal order. Two fascinating perspectives on this topic can be found in the writings of and about Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes in which we see that both men, in their conclusions regarding the value of liberty versus order, see the two as irrevocably interconnected. In his essay addressing the topic of individual rights versus public order, Solari cites the The Portable Machiavelli in his assertion that “Machiavelli, the ultimate realist, would argue that man would, in time, attempt to exert his liberty over the power of society. Thus, it is crucial to establish the rule of community over man, so that the social welfare of the community is protected from the very liberty that it allows.”1 Hobbes conclusions are somewhat similar, with the possible exception that Hobbes was a humanist; Machiavelli, a civic humanist, a proponent of pure nationalism and political power. Tuck writes that although Hobbes was generally considered liberal, he conceded that “...extensive intervention in peoples lives might in fact be necessary to secure the goal of universal survival.” 2 While Machiavelli promoted the power of the leader as evidenced in The Prince, Hobbes, a generation later, was influenced more by a humanistic point of view, less interested in the power of the state than in a social order beneficial to all men to which individuals contribute. Hobbes and his theory of state of nature provide the backdrop for his perception of the rights of the individual versus order. In a broader sense, the state of nature as he defines it is the condition of man before the rule of law. It is, when analysed, a state of anarchy with each individual possessing all rights to do anything they wish. His Leviathan, as a seminal work written during the English Civil War, demonstrated the necessity of a strong central authority to avoid the evils of political and social discord brought about by man in the state of nature, thus admitting that individual rights are to a great extent subject to restriction for the good of all. This, in essence, leads to the social contract formed between all men as enforced by a legitimate authority for the sake of order. “The original (social) contract is the simultaneous transfer of the many to one or a few of the right of self government in return for security...the right to see to one’s own protection can be given up and transferred and indeed ought to be given up...for the sake of peace.”3 A realist, Hobbes expects that in cases of abuse rebellion is to be expected. This is not to intimate that those subjected to authority do not have liberties. Nor is he saying that liberty requires no laws or order. In fact, he insists on quite the opposite. “Now seeing freedom cannot stand together with subjection, liberty in a commonwealth is nothing but government and rule, which because it cannot be divided, men must expect in common; and that can be no where but in the popular state, or democracy”4 Harrington clarifies Hobbes’s position on liberty and defends the concept as positive while admitting it is reliant upon and enforces social order. “His (Hobbes) definition of liberty is not straightforward, and his use of the concept varies according to the context in which he uses it; but his view of the essential nature of liberty, the form of political society which can best safeguard it, and the balance of freedom and obligation between subject and sovereign within the state, are fundamentally consistent.”5 The nuance that differentiates the Machiavellian perception of liberty versus order from Hobbes is noteworthy. For Machiavelli, liberty is a byproduct of pure love of country stemming from a passionate patriotism and nationalism. Interpreting the philosopher, Viroli writes, “Love of country does not make citizens docile and passive. It instills commitment to the institutions and the laws which protect the common liberty, while at the same time disposes the citizens to resist against tyranny and corruption.”6 In line with Hobbes, he sees liberty as a human state of existence possible only if the individual gives himself to the common good of the nation. For Machiavelli it is an emotional giving; for Hobbes a decision based on reason and political reality. No doubt the position implies acquiescence to reasonable order. Viroli summarizes Machiavelli’s conclusion and his perspective on liberty as“...recognition of ones own self-interest as citizen more than the result of the sacrifice of passions or individual interests...Except for a small number of citizens who desire liberty in order to obtain authority over the others, the greatest majority of the citizens desire liberty to live in security.”7 The state provides the liberty through rule (order). Order then assures liberty, not the converse. While Machiavelli does not speak specifically of social contract it is implied in his insistence that citizens love their country, ostensibly enough to accept the enforcement of order. Machiavelli’s primary political goals: national security, national independence and strong constitution did not discount the fact that he believed politics to be an ongoing power struggle and, like Hobbes, as Fermia writes, was “relentlessly pessimistic...” about human nature, believing “...war and violence were ever present realities...” and that “...self assertion is necessary”8 for security. Several Machiavellian quotes speak directly to his perspective on national security and how to maintain it. The most familiar of these appears here: From this arises the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both: but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.9 While unfortunately Machiavelli is best known for his work The Prince, which paints him as an “end justifies the means” political theorist, his full political philosophy found in Discourses on Livy tell a different story of his strong belief in a republican state and a proponent of politics for the public good. Most people fail to realize that he wrote The Prince, under dire circumstances. He had been a diplomat for Florence when it was violently defeated and absorbed by another nation. Machiavelli himself was exiled and in his bitterness wrote The Prince and has ever since been identified with the “Machiavellian” view of government, which many interpret as the call for undue suppression of rights. Indeed, it is more a wake up call for governments and Princes (leaders) to strike first in the interests of self preservation based on his own experiences. To explain Machiavelli’s attitude toward the notion of constitution and protection of rights it is necessary to explain the concept of mixed constitution or mixed regime as promoted in Aristotelian thought, practiced in Rome, and used as a model for Machiavelli’s concept of republican state. Hörnqvist writes: The classical doctrine of the mixed regime constitution is arguably one of the most influential and enduring but at the same time least understood themes in the tradition of Western political thought. After having been referred to in a somewhat cryptic form in Platos Laws, the ideal begin to figure prominently in the writings of Aristotle and Polybius.1 Cicero offers a detailed discussion of the mixed regime in De re publica... The doctrine contends that a more stable and lasting form of government will result if elements from two or three of the unmixed regimes — i.e. monarchy, aristocracy and democracy — are so combined that its constituent parts can check and counter-balance each other, thus hindering the constitution from growing corrupt and lapsing into one of the three bad or unjust forms — tyranny, oligarchy and anarchy.10 According to Hörnqvist, most scholars put Machiavelli in the group of civic humanists of his day who adhered to this idea of constitution. “For Viroli, rule of law is in Machiavelli’s theory a necessary precondition of liberty and a check against corruption.’11 There is a clear Machiavellian preference for pure republicanism in that while past versions of the mixed regime constitution put aristocracy (ruling class) in favored position of power to inflict order, Machiavelli “... promotes an aggressive and ferocious form of popular republicanism in which “the control of elites by the general populace” is a crucial element. Hörnqvist continues “His anti-elitist stance is most evident in Discourses I.3-8 where he discusses the creation of the Tribune of plebs and argues that the guardianship of liberty should be assigned not to the nobles but to the people.12 It is obvious that Machiavelli does not think much of the ruling elite and less of their desire to do what is correct for the populace. In short, as Hobbes would see it, the social contract is seriously flawed. His (Machiavelli’s) cynical view suggests that the elite be encouraged to go outside the borders of Florence, make war and conquest, and leave the people to their republican liberties—an interesting bit of Machiavellian manipulation to ensure the preservation of individual liberty while the elite pursue their personal goals and, provide security for the populace. In the last analysis, regarding Machiavelli and constitution, Hörnqvist writes, “he (Machiavelli) proposes a two-tier system...in which the truly virtuous, the prudenti, are given ample scope for extra-constitutional machinations in the interest of justice and the common good.”13-- a rather flowery sentimental notion for someone as cynical as Machiavelli regarding man and his motives. Seeing liberty as a product of republicanism, the assumption here is that liberty is a byproduct of order, and the order itself provides it. They are mutually inclusive. In the modern world one finds examples of the political propositions as proposed by both Hobbes and Machiavelli. In terms of liberty versus order in society, we can examine a quote by Hornqvist that rings particularly true in political circles today in relationship to how the intentions of persons in power or a group are enforced. “Men in general and political actors in particular have a tendency to conceal their true views and intentions behind manipulative facades.”14 News investigators every day are uncovering evidence of this behavior that enforces, in its own way, a kind of order and undoubtedly diminishes liberty, both societal and personal. When the U.S. government passes laws such as the Patriot Act, is it really acting on behalf of the people, of individuals? There has certainly been sufficient evidence that the law, which according to both Hobbes and Machiavelli protect the common good, meaning rights, does in many instances just the opposite. One can argue, and perhaps both men would, that such a law in the end does preserve common good and the liberty of individuals by providing security from evildoers. And a case can be made. However, what of the rights of the individuals who were wiretapped illegally? Apparently they were to be sacrificed to a vague notion of security which we now know was sold to the American people by those in power by manipulating law and government processes to their own end. The facts speak harshly about the validity of and enforceability by those not in power of the social contract. However as stated previously in a quote from Machiavelli, “man would, in time, attempt to exert his liberty over the power of society.” And in this instance many whose rights were infringed upon using the Patriot Act have done just that. Whether we are speaking of Hobbes rational, systemic approach to liberty versus order, or Machiavelli’s double edged perspective weighing rights with the reality of human corruption, it seems impossible to speak of individual rights and liberties without considering the social consequences. Although the notion that what benefits individual liberty benefits all may be wishful thinking at best, the regular and condoned trampling on individual rights in the interests of order and security is a frightening prospect. Notes 1. Brian Solari. Order. Online Debate on: Personal Liberty vs. Community Order and Law: 5 of 5.(Helium: 2002-2009). http://www.helium.com/debates/130141-personal-liberty-vs-community-order-and-law-which-should-prevail/side_by_side?page=5 2. Richard Tuck. Hobbes. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 67. 3. Tom Sorell and Luc Foisneau eds. Leviathan after 350 Years. (Oxford England: Clarendon, 2004), 3. 4. Thomas Hobbes. “Hobbes on Liberty” (extract from Leviathan). (25 Sept. 2006). http://pages.pomona.edu/~mjg14747/033-2006/Liberty.pdf 5. Ralph Harrington. “Hobbes and Liberty: The Subject’s Sphere of Liberty in Leviathan”. (2005) http://www.greycat.org/papers/hobbes.html 6. Maurizio Viroli. Machiavelli. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). 163 7. Ibid.,164. 8. Joseph V. Femia. Machiavelli Revisited. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2004). 63. 9. Niccolo Machiavelli (quote from The Prince) 2006. Website, Philosophy Paradise. http://www.philosophyparadise.com/quotes/machiavelli.html 10. Mikael Hörnqvist. “The Machiavellian Elite: Prudence and the Mixed Regime in the Thought of Niccolo Machiavelli.” 1. http://faculty.virginia.edu/pol-theoryprogram/hornqvist%20machiavellian%20elite.pdf 11. Ibid., 4. 12 Ibid., 12. 13 Ibid., 28. 14 Ibid., 20. Bibliography Femia, Joseph V. Machiavelli Revisited. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2004. Harrington, Ralph. Hobbes and Liberty: The Subject’s Sphere of Liberty in Leviathan. (2005). Copywrite: Creative Commons Attribution Non- Commercial No Derivative Works 3.0 Licence. http://www.greycat.org/papers/hobbes.html Hobbes, Thomas. “Hobbes on Liberty”. Extract from Leviathan. 25 Sept. 2006. http://pages.pomona.edu/~mjg14747/033-2006/Liberty.pdf Hörnqvist, Mikael. The Machiavellian Elite: Prudence and the Mixed Regime in the Thought of Niccolo Machiavelli. http://faculty.virginia.edu/poltheoryprogram/hornqvist%20machiavellian%20elite .pdf Machiavelli, Niccolo. (quote from The Prince) 2006. Website, Philosophy Paradise. http://www.philosophyparadise.com/quotes/machiavelli.html Solari, Brian. Order. Online Debate on: Personal Liberty vs. Community Order and Law: 5 of 5. http://www.helium.com/debates/130141-personal-liberty-vs-community- order-and-law-which-should-prevail/side_by_side?page=5 Sorell, Tom and Foisneau, Luc, eds. Leviathan after 350 Years. Oxford, England: Clarendon, 2004. Tuck, Richard. Hobbes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. Viroli, Maurizio. Machiavelli. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Read More