John Locke and Niccolo Machiavelli on State Concerns and Economic Thoughts - Report Example

John Locke and Niccolo Machiavelli on Concerns and Economic Thoughts On initiating proposition for the ‘Second Treatise of Civil Government’, John Locke describes how the state of nature is like for men in general. He takes into account the nature in which there exists a state of perfect freedom that enables men to act and utilize properties according to their desire which must not be subject to or is necessarily unrestrained by the terms of other men. Locke argues further that if this case were to hold in its constant setting with fundamental objectives met, a law of nature should govern such natural state. The reason that embodies this law would keep the state of nature under expected order as men designate their confidence on its jurisdiction which is able to guide rational humans toward the state of equality as well. By consulting the law of nature, Locke claims that mankind eventually understands the value of independence and of being equal in terms of living in several aspects regardless of individual concerns whether for the sake of possessions, health, or liberty for instance. Through his liberal approach in the period that witnessed the birth of mercantilism, the society was drawn to enlightenment with the idea of perceiving an economy over which legislative authority could exercise but a kind of power limited to that formed within consent in the commonwealth. This likely establishes the principle that rests on recognizing political potentials as subject to the need of directing socio-economic conditions toward equilibrium or in a harmonious situation whereby everyone delights with equal share of property and none is found to bear ill will against another. Moreover, Locke states “...Men living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of nature.” In other words, the state of nature is fulfilled by a common will or desire based on reason which agrees to mutual comprehension in the absence of control via judge or any superior ruling body. However, to clarify this assumption, Locke adds that if the common want for judge emerges, the state of nature is still observed as long as no force is set against human will or right. Otherwise, the natural state transforms into a state of war for which Locke resolves “To avoid this state of war – wherein there is no appeal but to heaven ... – is one great reason of men’s putting themselves into society and quitting the state of nature.” For Locke, man’s liberty by nature entails freedom “from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule (Locke).” On the other hand, when N. Machiavelli necessitates to argue that “the ends justify the means”, he is pertaining to a stately rule by which “the prince”, who appears to possess the attributes of being merciful, faithful, humane, sincere, and religious, governs for the sake of stabilizing the grounds of sovereignty which is perceived as a noble aim, regardless of the means or schemes employed in achieving the latter. For Machiavelli, since the prince is sagacious enough to appear to be good overall at the external, his subjects are deceived at the thought of his seemingly remarkable objective of fortifying the state for the benefit of all. Thus, the people who are motivated by fear rather than any instinct to oppose the prince’s insight are disposed to honor the ends of the ruler however he wishes to pursue his goals through his legitimate power whether by ideal or mischievous political design (Machiavelli). Apparently, it is most suitable to acknowledge that Machiavelli requires a type of leader who fulfils his selfish interest by an “invisible hand” of unintended consequences in which the citizens manage to gain their own advantage by the course of nature despite the prince’s real yet unknown intention of acquiring power to its absolute extent. On behalf of stable princely rule, hence, one may well justify how Machiavelli fits in a “Republican” status though such identity becomes modified as he exhibits the role of a tactician who believes that the greater majority ought to benefit according to the projected ends of state progress. Implicitly, though the prince has nothing to do with this yet he have prudence to show and if the people of the state were to obtain prosperity by coincidence, it should not be permitted to transpire always, only most of the time. In view of the proposition where “the ends justify the means”, Machiavelli likely points out that politics, no matter which paths are taken, good or evil, as maneuvred by the prince must yield to the stability of his government, or more specifically, the foundations upon which his powers rest. Anything or anyone that threatens such ultimate end form materializing the prince is expected to have as far removed from him as possible while in the process of maintaining and expanding the realms of his potentials and authorities altogether. At whatever cost, the deliberate goal of the means is to secure a political power for the prince to enable him to execute tasks toward the favor of satisfying his subsequent desires. The citizens, the ideals, and the rest of the associated concerns may or may not be equivalently impacted by the chief aim as such but their natural or forced agreement is at least necessary so that nothing sets any probable barrier as the prince proceeds to work for the ends much sought after. Once the prince has been able to convince and deceive the citizens that it is truly a noble deed to do everything by virtue of upholding the welfare of the state and strengthening it by all of the available resources, then it must be understood that whatever means that follow with a fully acknowledged end in mind and heart would occur justifiable. As long as the objectives remain intact within people’s trust and respect, this condition shall sustain justice and allowances for means to be carried out in attaining the goals with politics and for which, Machiavelli claims that “there are two methods of fighting, the one by law, the other by force: the first method is that of men, the second of beasts; but as the first method is often insufficient, one must have recourse to the second (Machiavelli).” To this, he further added “it is therefore necessary for a prince to know well how to use both the beast and the man.” Works Cited Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Hackett Pub Co., 1980. Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Penguin Classics; Oxford World’s Classic Ed., 2004. Read More